Iesus that in euery kingdome that receaueth the Ghospell there should be one Archbishop ouer the whole kingdome one Bishop ouer many hundred Pastors in a kingdome and all they inuested with that authority and iurisdiction Apostolicall which they clayme iure diuino to be due `vnto them by the ordinance of Christ certainly that Church which should renounce and disclayme such an authority ordayned in the Church cannot be a true Church but the Synagogue of Sathan for they that should renounce and deny such must needs therin renounce and deny Christ himself Thus the assumption is cleared So the Author 34. To which argument as the Catholicks for true Bishops will willingly graunt the sequeleâ— that the Church of the Puritans is no Church but a Synagogue of Sathan for that it wanteth themâ— so I see not what Mâ— Barlow and his Protestants can reply thereuntoâ— for if Episcopall authority be diuinoâ— then cell of Rome condemned the same togeather with the Author therof So these Lutherans But with our beggarly English Protestants all is fish that coÌ„meth to the neâ—â— and of these outcast raggs they must patch vp a Church or els confesse that before Luther they haue none to whome they can accrew 39. And truly it is a pittifull thing to see what raggs some of them are not ashamed to gather vp what Hereticks I say they will professe to ioyne withall in opinions most brutish and blasphemous deuided amongst themselues and discarded by the more learned Protestants that the Reader may well with the Poâ—t demaund quid sequar aut quem For M. Symons draweth in Petrús Abilardus who though he died a repentant Catholicke and a religious Monk of the Abbey of Cluny in France which singuler grace I find only graunted by Almighty God to no other Sect. Maisters but Berengarius him yet whiles he liued in error he maintayned that Christ tooke not flesh to redeeme mankind that he had two persons that he was not God and the like Doth not this man stoope low for help thinke you Againe he togeather with M. Fox admitteth for brethren the beastly and barbarous Albigenses who had their beginning as Massonius writeth from one Henry Bruis of whom and whose filthy life S. Bernard maketh mention And these were so far of from being Ghospellers as they could not endure the Ghospell it self which hauing first most villainously abused at the siege of 〈◊〉 they cast it ouer the Walls towards the Catholike Army shooting many arrowes after it and crying aloud vnto the Souldiers ecce lex vestra miseri behould o miserable men your law or as Matthew Paris relateth it sitâ— behould your law we care not for it take it to your selues I omit their execrable blasphemies against our Bl. Sauiour himself S. Mary Magdalen not to offend Christian eares therwith for which our Sauiour seemed to take reuenge vpon them on the feast and in the Church of the same Saint where 7000. of them were slaine as saith Massaeus or many more as Heisterbachius who then liued Now what greater discredit can there be to the Protestants and their cause then then to rake Hell and make Saints of these damned soules enemies of all piety most seditious and rebellious spirits But to proceed 40. To these by M. Buckley Fox Abbotts others are adioyned the Waldenses whom they will haue to be but schollers or rather followers of the former but this following is only in tyme not in doctrine if we well consider what most authors write of them both and M. Fox is not ashamed to draw into his den fanatical Almericke making him for more credit of a Priest a Byshop But M. Iewell with one blast bloweth away all these clouted patches of this beggarly Church saying thus Of Abilard and Almerick and certaine other your strange names M. Harding meaneth Apostolicks Petrobusians Waldâ—nses Albigenses Image-breakers we haue no skill they are none of ours So he ouerthrowing in few words all M. Fox his laborious endeauours to make them Saints Martyrs true Ghospellers so well do these men agree among themselâ—es in buylding vp the babylonicall tower of their new deuised and confused Synagogue one denying what another graunteth yea one and the selfe same man fighting with himself saying vnsaying affirming and denying For in the very tenth page of that defence M. Iewell writeth As for Iohn Wickliff Iohn Husse Waldo and the rest they were godly men their greatest heresy was this that they complayned of the dissolute and vitious liues of the Clergy c. 41. Lo here Waldo is a godly man without error in doctrine yet of his followers M. Iewell hath no skil they are none of his Whereas notwithstanding you may be sure the schollers agreed in all things with their maisters Which of these two M. Iewell wil you beleeue Truely as for the godlines of Waldo I find no great record so neither will M. Iewell be able to shew wherin he disagreed from the Waldensians who as Guido the Carmelite writeth did hold amongest diuers other things which I pretermit that no man might iudge another for life and death because it is written nolite iudicare Iudge you not That Lay-men had authority giuen them from Almighty God to heare Confessions and absolue from sinnes That all carnall copulation when men are tempted therunto is lawfull They contemned the Apostles Creed and would haue Masse said but once in the yeare to wit on Maunday-Thursday by saying seauen Pater Nosters and blessing the bread and wine c. This and much more was the godly doctrine of M. Iewells Doctor Waldo whose learning was equall to his vertue for he could scant as most Authors affirme either write or read But I meane no further to prosecute this argument of which who listeth to read more may peruse what Coccius the Author of the Protestants Apology F. Persons in the last part of his three Conuersions haue written hereof and he will rest satisfied Now I come to examin M. Barlowes disputation what skill of Diuinity he sheweth in the same 42. He entreth into the list with great courage tells the Reader that F. Persons standeth ouer the Cardinall as if he were gasping for breath vnder the blow he hath receaued for his contradictions and makes the Father as a Chirurgion of the camp to cure three or foure of them which M. Barlow will needs lance againe and cut as he thinketh to the quick but vseth such dull instruments that so weakely as he doth neither cut nor bruze though much he labour to do his best and after some ten pages spent in idle babling lying and ignorant disputing like a victorious conquerour in the end excusing himself for the length of his discourse by reason that F. Persons did set vp saith he his crest and rest vpon it that if in this there be any contradiction he will yield that the Apologer hath not ouerlashed in
folly for saying but a supposal as though it were a speach of vncertainty I haue said sufficieÌ„t before There remaineth his vntruth in saying that Bellar. doth suppose that if the rest of the Apostles were not made Bishops by S Peter then cannot the Church of Rome be the Mother-Church of other Churches nor the Bishop vniuersal Bishop For first as coÌ„cerning the latter part about the Vniuersall Bishop Bellarmine hath no one word thereof but teacheth the quite contrary founding the power and authority of S. Peter ouer all other Churches vpon other groundes and namely vpon the commission of Christ Matth. 16. â—oan 20. not vpon his ordayning or not ordayning Bishops of the other Apostles about which question he doth but set downe the opinion of Ioannes de Tuâ—reâ—remata lib. 2. Summae de Ecclesia Cap. 32. with his reasons â—or the same and consequently doth not â—et it downe as a supposall certaine ground or principle but as a probable and disputable opinion though himself hould the opinion of Turrecremata to be more probable But on the other side Franciscus de Victoria heere cited by M. Barlow himselâ—e though he be of a contrary opinion to Turrecremata and to Bellarmine about the Ordination of all the Apostles by S. Peter yet doth he in the very same place professe that S. Peter was Vniuersall Bishop ouer all the Church of God Primus Princeps cum summa supertotam Ecclesiam potâ—state That among the Apostles he was the first and principall with supreme power ouer all the Church So as the denial of this particulâ—r priuiledge in S. Peter that he ordained all other Apostles Bishops doth not inâ—eâ—e that he was not vniuersall Bishop of the whole Church as here we see M. Barlow most falsely to inferre And whereas he noteth in the margent with great diligence diuers Catholicke writers that dâ—â— hold the question to be probable on both sids as Salmeron Victoria Suarez and Gregorius de Valâ—ntia that is but an old trick to shuâ—â—le and make a noice where there is no need for Bellarmine doth not hold the thing to be de fide or infallible supposall and consequently it little importeth to bring in this diuersity of opinions of the aâ—oresayd Authors about the matter Now then to come to the second vntruth that the Pope by decreeing the Oath as it lay was vnlawfull did also forbid euen that very point of sâ—earing ciuill obedience which is so notoriously vntrue as whosoeuer doth but read the Popes Breue it selfe or Cardinall Bellarmine his explication therof or my Letter wherin the contrary is euery where protested wil maruaile to see such impudent proceeding But of this more afterward Now wee shall passe to discusse whether there be any pointes in the sayd Oath concerning the religion and consciences of Catholicks whereby the taking thereof was made vnlawfull vnto them For this doth Maister Barlow vtterly deny as now you shall heare WHETHER THE OATH BE ONLY OF CIVILL OBEDIENCE Or whether there be any clauses in it against Catholicke Religion CHAP. II. THIS point being one of the most chief of al my Treatise about the Oath is haÌ„dled by me somewhat largely pag. 13. of my Letter where vpon the deniâ—ll of the Apologer that any thing is there required but Ciuill obedience my wordes are these And how shall we cleare tâ—is important matter to wit VVhether there be any poyntes in thâ— Oath belonging to religion besides ciuill obedience and I do answer that it is vâ—ry easy to cleare the same by fower seuerall and distinct waâ—es First by the expresse wordes sense and drift of the Oath it selfe that besides the acknowledgemenâ— of temporall respects to wit that our Soueraigne is tâ—â—â— Kâ—ng rightâ—ull Lord ouer all his dominions and â—hat the swearer is his true loyall subiect to obey him in all temporall affayres and other like clauses whereat no man sticketh or maketh difficulty there be other clauses also against the authority of the Supreme Pastour which doe iustly breed scruple of conscience to a Catholicke to â—dmit or take the same Secondly I shewed the same by the Popes wordes in his Breues wherin he doth conioyne the taking of this Oath with the going to the Churches and Seruice of a different Religion pronouncing the one and the other to be vnlawfull Thirdly I declared the same out of the iudgment of Cardinall Bellarmine other learned men who hauing considered well the nature of this Oath and different clauses therin coÌ„tayned do hold it for so cautelously compounded by artificially ioyning togeather Temporal and Spirituall thinges to wit Ciuill Obedience forswearing the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority as no man can thereby profâ—sse his temporall subiection and detest treason and conspiracy which all Catholikes are most willing to doe but he must be forced also to renouÌ„ce the Primacy of the Sea Apostolicke from which all good Cathoâ—ick consciences do iustly abhorre Fourthly for a more full and finall clearing of this matter that I could thinke of no better nor more forcible meane then to make this reall offer on the behalfe of euery English Catholicke for better satisfaction of his Maiestie in this poynt so much vrged of their ciuill and temporall obedience First that he will sweare and acknowledge most willingly all those partes and clauses of the Oath that do any way appertayne to the Ciuil and Temporall obedience due to his Maiesty whom he acknowledgeth for his true and lawfull King and Soueraigne ouer all his dominions and that he will sweare vnto him as much loyalty as euer any Catholicke Subiect of England did vnto their lawfull Kinges in former tymes and ages before the change of King Henry the eight or that aâ—y forrayne subiect oweth or ought to sweare to any Catholicke Prince whatsoeuer at this day These were the â—oure wayes which then occurred 〈◊〉 my mind wherunto it shall be good to examine brieâ—â—y what M. Barlow hath bene able to say in this his answâ—â—â— He beginneth resoluâ—ely as though he had intention 〈◊〉 ioynâ— really indeed Now then saith he this must be cleâ—â—â—â— whether the Oath doth onely concerne ciuill obedience yea or no 〈◊〉 that it doth not the Censurer taketh vpon him to satisfy in eight â—â—â—bers â—rom the 20. to the 28. and that foure seuerall waies So â—e And what doth he alleage against these foure waie◠〈◊〉 eâ—fect no word at all though he babble not a little of diuers matters impertinent to the purpose VVe laying this 〈◊〉 our ground saith he that first both swearing and performing 〈◊〉 obedience is aswell negative against any intruder challenger or vsâ—â—per as affirmatiue â—or the lawfull gouernours and Soueraignes Secondly that this challeng of the Pope in dethroning and deposing of Priâ—ces is a temporall intrusion and no spirituall iurisdiâ—tion do câ—â—clâ—â—â— with a strong and apparant euidence that the whole bulke of the Oâ—â—â— both in the submissiue and exclusiue part doth
Athanasius himselfe in a long Epistle of this matter where he also recouÌ„teth the bold speach of bishop Osius the famous Confessor of Corduba who was one of the 318. Fathers that saâ—â— as Iudges in the first Councell of Niâ—e and vsed the saâ—â— liberty of speach to the forsayd Emperour at another time which the other Bishops had done before him saying to him Leaue of I beseech thee o Emperor these dealingâ— in Ecclesiasticall affayres remember thou art mortall feare the day of Iudgement keep thy selfe free from this kind of sin do not vse coÌ„mandements to vs in this kind but rather learne of vs for that God hath coÌ„mitted the Empire vnto thee to vs the things that appertaine to his Church c. All which speaches doth S. Athanasius allow highly coÌ„mend in the same place adding further of his owne That now the sayd Constantius had made his Pallace a tribunall of Ecclesiasticall causes in place of Ecclesiasticall Courtes and had made himselfe the cheife Prince and head of spirituall Pleas which he calleth the abhomination foretold by Daniel the Prophet c. Which speach if old Athanasius should haue vsed to his Maiestie in the presence of all the rest and seconded by others that sate theâ—e with him could not in all reason but much moue especially ifâ— So Gregory Nazianzen and S. Ambrose should haue recounted their admonitions about the same to their temporall Lord and Emperour Valentinian as when the former sayd vnto him as is extant yet in his Oration That he should vnderstand that he being a Bishop had greater authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters then the Emperor and that he had a tribunall or seat of Iudgment higher then the Emperour who was one of his sheep and that more resolutly S. Ambrose to the same Emperour when he comaunded him to giue vp a Church to the handes of the Arians Trouble not yourselfe o Emperor sayth S. Ambrose in commanding me to delyuer the Church nor do you persuade your selfe that you haue any Imperiall right ouer these things that are spirituall and diuine exalt not your selfe but be subiect to God if you will raigne be content with those things that belonge to Cesar and leaue those which are of God vnto God Pallaces appertayne vnto the Emperor and Churches vnto the Preist And these three Fathers hauing thus briefly vttered their sentences for much more might be alleaged out of them in this kind let vs see how the fourth that is to say S. ChrysostoÌ„ Archbishop of Constantinople coÌ„curred with theÌ„ Stay o king saith he within thy bounds limits for different are the bounds of a kingdome the limits of Priesthood this Kingdome of Priesthood is greater then the other Bodies are committed to the King but the soules to the Priest And againe Therfore hath God subiected the Kings head to the Priests haÌ„d instructing vs therby that the Priest is a greater Prince then the king according to S. Paul to the Hebrews the lesser alwaies receaueth blessing from the greater These foure Fathers then hauing grauely set downe their opinions about this point of spirituall power not to be assumed by teÌ„porall Princes let vs imagine the other three to talk of some other mater as namely S. Hierome that he vnderstandeth diuers pointes of the heresie of Iouinian and Vigilantius against whome he had with great labour written seuerall Bookes to be held at this day in his Maiesties kingdomes of England Scotland which could not but grieue him they being coÌ„demned heresies by the Church S. Augustine also vpon occasion giuen him may be imagined to make his coÌ„plaint that he hauing written amongst many other books one de cura pro mortuis agenda for the care that is to be had for soules departed both in that booke and in sundry other partes of his workes said downe the doctrine and practice of the Church in offering prayers Sacrifice for the dead and deliuering soules from purgatory and that the sayd Catholicke Church of his time had condemned Aërius of heresy for the contrary doctrine yet he vnderstood that the matter was laughed at now in Eâ—gland and Aërius in this point held for a better Christian then himselfe yea and wheras he S. Augustine had according to the doctrine and practice of the true Catholicke Church in his dayes prayed for the soule of his Mother besought all others to doe the like his Maiestie was taught by these new-sprong doctors to condemn the same neither to pray for the soule departed of his mother dying in the same Catholicke fayth nor to permit others to do the same All which Saint Gregory hearing â—et vs suppose him out of that great loue and charity wherwith he was inflamed towardes England and the English Nation to vse a most sweet and fatherly speach vnto his Maiestie exhorting him to remember that he sent into England by the first preachers that came from him the same Catholicke Christian Religion which was then spread ouer the whole world and that which he had receiued by succession of Bishops and former ages from the said Fathers there present and they from the Apostles and that the said ancient true and Catholicke Religion was sincerely deliuered vnto his Maiesties first Christian predecessor in England King Ethelbert and so continued from age to age vntill King Henry the eight If I say this graue assembly of ancient holy Fathers should be made about his Maiesty he fitting in the middest and should heare what they say and ponder with what great learning grauity and sanctitie they speake and how differently they talke from these new maisters that make vp M. Barlowes little Vniuersitie I thinke verily that his Maiestie out of his great iudgment would easily contemne the one in respect of the other But alas he hath neyther time nor leysure permitted to him to consider of these thinges nor of the true differences being so possessed or at least wise so obsessed with these other mens preoccupations euen from his tender youth and cradle as the Catholicke cause which only is truth could neuer yet haue entrance or indifferent audience in his Maiesties â—ares but our prayers are continually that it may And now hauing insinuated how substantially this little Vniuersity of ancient learned Fathers would speake to his Maiesty if they might be admitted eyther at table or time of repast or otherwise Let vs consider a little how different matters euen by their owne confession these new Academicks do suggest for that M. Barlow going about to excuse his fellow T. M. the yonger from that crime of Sycophancy which was obiected for his calumniations against Catholikes in his table-talke trifling first about the word what it signifyeth in greeke according to the first institution therof to wit an accusation of carrying out of figges out of Athens as before hath bene shewed and then for him that vpon small matters accuseth another as
colour of this power to discerne spirits giuen theÌ„ by M. Bâ—â—loâ— out of the words of S. Iohn there would neuer be an end And lastly it appeareth by all this that his lâ—st distinction wherin he sayth that the King may iudge for the truth and not of the truth is a meere delusion giuing somewhat in wordes but nothing in deed for that if the iudging for the truth be nothing els but to execute allow and approue that which others haue defined determined and appointed out vnto him to be belieued and defended as the truth then hath he no more free choice or superiority in iudgment in this case then euery subiect or common man who is likewise bound to belieue and defend the same according to his ability and power Now then to conclude the matter and to reduce all to a briefe summe for so much as M. Barlow taketh away from his Maiesty of England not only the title and style Of Head of the Church which was giuen to King Henry and confirmed to King Edward but the Papall authority in like manner for decision of matters which was ascribed vnto them both by Parlament and confirmed to Queene Elizabeth and here saith that he cannot iudge in cases of religion and fayth iudicio definitiâ—o to define and determine any thing but only execuâ—iuo to execute what the Church of England to wit what the Bishops shall define and ordayne and for somuch as he addeth yet further now in that which before we haue discussed three other particuler cases out of S. Ambrose wherin he conâ—esâ—eth that his Maiesty hath no authority but may be resisted to wit if he should call before him a Bishop to dispute with another of a different religion as Valenâ—inian did S. Ambrose and he denyed him If he should commaund a Bishop to deliuer ouer a Church to a people of a different religion and if he should command a Bishop to deliuer vp the Veâ—els of his Church as the said Empeâ—ouâ— did and the â—ther refused to obey all these things I say laid â—ogeâ—tâ—er â—ut of M. Barlows doctrine do so much diminish the greatnes of his Maiesties Supreme power in causes Ecclesiasticall as in effect it commeth to be no more thâ—n Catholike doctrine doth ordinarily allow to euery Catholicke Temporall Prince for the obseruance and execution of that which the Church determineth And this is M. Barlâ—â—â—â— heroycall exployt to marre the matter he takes in hand for his Clyent Let euery man iudge how well he hath deserued the good fee which already he hath recâ—aâ—ed for his plea and hopeth to receaue more hereafter if he may speed according to his expectation OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE Or Iâ—stance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall §. III. THERE followeth another controuersy betweene M. Barlow me about a certayne fact of S. Gregory the Great concerning the Law of Mauritius the Emperour prohibiting souldiars and such as were accomptable to the Emperours Courtes for offices borne by them to enter into monasteries and professe a religious life without his licence whereof I wrote thus in my letter Neyther doth the last place cited out of S. Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauritius make any thing moâ—e for our Apologers purpose of taking Oathes against Conscience For albeit the same Father do greatly complaâ—ne in diuers places of the oppression of the Church by the Kingly power of Mauritius whome though otherwise a Catholike Emperour he compareth in that poynt to Nero and Dioclâ—siâ—n saying Quid Nero quid Dioclesiâ—â—â—s qâ—id deâ—ique isteâ— qui â—oc tempore â—â—â—lesiam persequitur Nâ—mqâ—â—◠〈◊〉 omnes porta Inferi Whâ—t was Nero What was Dioclesâ—â—â— what is he who at this time doth persecute the Church Are they not all gates of Hell Yet in this place alleaged by the Apologer he yealded to publish and send abroâ—d into diuers Countreys and Prouinces a certayne vniust law of the sayd Emperours that prohibited Sâ—uldiars and such as had bene imployed in matters of publike accompts of the CoÌ„mon-Wealth to make theÌ„selues Monks Wâ—ich law though S. Gregory did greatly mislike and wrote sharply agaynst it to the Emperour himselfe yet to shew his due respect in temporall thinges vnto him and for that indeed the law was not absolutly so euill but that in some good sense it might be tolerated to wit that Souldiars sworn to the Emperours wars might not during the said Oath obligation be receaued into Monasteries but with the Princes liceÌ„ce yet for that it tended to the abridgmeÌ„t of Ecclesiastical freedome in taking that course or state of life which ech man chooseth for the good of his soule S. Gregoâ—y misliked the same and dealt earnestly with the Emperour to relinquish it or to suffer it to be so moderated as it might stand without preiudice of Christian liberty wherunto the Emperour at length yeelded and so S. Gregory sent the same abroad vnto diuers Primates and Archbishops of sundry Kingdomes mentioned by him but corrected first and reduced by himselfe as supreme Pastour to a reasonable lawfulnes and temperate moderation to wit that those who had borne offices of charge in the Common-wealth and after desired to be admitted to religious life in Monasteries should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their full accompts and had obtayned publicke discharge for the same And that Souldiars which demanded the like admittaÌ„ce should be exactly tryed and not admitted vnto Monasticall habite but after they had liued three yeares in their lay apparell vnder probation This determineth S. Gregory in his Epistle beginning Gregorius Eusebio Thessalonicensi Vrbicio Dyrachitano c. adding further in the same Epistle as hath bene said De qua re Serâ—issâ—mus Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur about which matter our most Clement and Christian Emperour is wholy pleased and content So as in this S. Gregory shewed his pastorall care and power in limiting and moderating the Emperours law according to the law of God though in temporall respectes he shewed him the Obedience that was due vnto him But what is this vnto our Oath May we thinke that S. Gregory that would not passe a temporall law of the Emperour without reprehension of the vnlawfulnes thereof to the Emperour himselfe and correction therof in the publication for that indirectly it did infringe the liberty of Religious life when men were called therunto that he would not haue much more resisted the admission of an Oath about such affaires if it had bene proposed No man I thinke in reason can imagin the contrary To this declaration of mine M. Barlow beginneth his reply thus But that of Gregory saith he toucheth the very quicke who as he thought his duty discharged to God in shewing the reasons why he disliked the Law so did he performe it very readily to the Emperour in promulging
A DISCVSSION OF THE ANSVVERE OF M. VVILLIAM BARLOVV D. of Diuinity to the Booke intituled The Iudgment of a Catholike Englishman liuing in banishment for his Religion c. CONCERNING The Apology of the new Oath of Allegiance VVRITTEN By the R. Father F. Robert Persons of the Society of IESVS VVHERVNTO since the said Fathers death is annexed a generall Preface laying open the Insufficiency Rayling Lying and other Misdemeanour of M. Barlow in his writing IOHN MORRIS Ex fructibus 〈…〉 Matth. 7. You shall know them by their fruites Permissu Superiorum M. DC XII A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS AND PARAGRAPHES CONTEYNED IN THIS BOOKE THE FIRST PART THE Preface to the Reader In which are laid open some few examples of the singular Ignorance Lying and other bad dealings of M. Barlow in his Answere to the Censure of the Apology Of Points concerning the new Oath of Allegiance handled in the Kings Apology before the Popes Breues and discussed in my former Letter CHAP. I. pag. 1. About the true Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance § 1. pag. 3. Of the pretended Cause of the new Oath which is said to be the Powder-Treason § 2. pag. 13. How great a pressure the vrging of the new Oath is to Catholickes that haue a contrary Conscience in Religion § 3. pag. 25. The same argument about the pressure of the Oath is further discussed § 4. pag. 31. What freedome may be said to be permitted to English Catholickes for swearing or not swearing the new Oath § 5. pag. 39. About recourse made to the Bishop of Rome for decisioÌ„ whether the Oath might lawfully be taken by English Catholicks or no Wherin also the present Pope his person is defended against sundry calumniations § 6. pag. 49. Whether the Oâ—th be only of ciuill obedience Oâ— whether thâ—re be any clauses in it against Catholicke Religion CHAP. II. pag. 70. Of certaine notorious Calumniations vsed by M. Barlow against his Aduersary which no waies can be excused froÌ„ malice and witting errour § 2. pag. 87. The reasoÌ„ is examined whether Gods prouideÌ„ce might seeme defectuous if no authority had beene left in the Christian Church to restraine punish euill Kings And whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings as M. Barlow maketh him CHAP. III. pag. 101. Whether the deuising vrging of this new Oath were a blessing or no eyther to the Receauers or Vrgers And first of the Recâ—auers wherin is handled also of Conscience of swearing against Conscience CHAP. IIII. pag. 115. Touching the exhibitours of the Oath and of Scandall actiue and passiue Wherin M. Barlowes grosse Ignorance is disâ—â—â—â—red § 2. pag. 128. The answere to an obiection by occasion whereof it is shewed that Pâ—ssâ—sâ—ion and Presâ—ription are good proofâ—s â—uer in matters of Dâ—ctrine And the contrary is fondly affâ—â—med by M. Barlow CHAP. V. pag. 141. THE SECOND PART About the Brâ—â—â—s of Pope Paulus Quintus CONCERNING M. Barlow his â—xorbitant flattery in exaggerating Queene Elizabeths Vertues and Sanctity CHAP. I. pag. 159. About Queene Elizabeth her Mortifications And of the nature of that Vertue § 2. pag. 168. Of Queene Elizabeth her Felicities and Infelicities CHAP. II. pag. 179. Other Points concerning Queene Elizabeths Felicities or Infelicities § 2. pag. 194. Of Queene Elizabeths Sicknes and Death and other things belonging therunto § 3. pag. 209. Of the Flattery and Sycophancy vsed by diuers Ministers to his Maiestie of England to the hurt and preiudice of Caâ—holicke men and their cause CHAP. III. pag. 229. About Toleration or Liberty of Conscience demaunded by humble petition at his Maiesties handes by Catholickes whether it were height of pride or not As also concerning the contention betweene Protestants and Puritans CHAP. IIII. pag. 251. Concerning Errours Absurdities Ignorances and Falsities vttered by M. Barlow in the rest of his Answere CHAP. V. pag. 273. Whether Toby did well or no in breaking the commandement of the King of Niniue concerning the burying of the dead Iewes And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authority of the Fathers and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy § 2. pag. 285. Of another example or instance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall § 3. pag. 303. Whether Councells haue submitted themselues vnto Christian Emperors in Spirituall affayres and namely that of Arles to Charles the great CHAP. VI. pag. 311. Whether the Pope in his Breue did forbid temporall Obedience to his Maiesty of England And whether the sayd Pope hath power to make new Articles of faith CHAP. VII pag. 323. Of certaine other fraudulent and vntrue dealings of M. Barlow vnto the end of this Paragraph with a notorious abuse in alleaging S. Thomas of Aquine his Authority § 2. pag. 334. THE THIRD PART Concerning Cardinall Bellarmine his Letter OF the occasion of the Letter written by Cardinall Bellarmine vnto M. George Blackâ—well Archpriest And whether he mistooke the state of the question Also of the change of Supreme Head into Supreme Gouernour CHAP. I. pag. 245. Whether the denying of taking this New Oath do include the deniall of all the particulâ—r clauses contayned therin § 2. pag. 356. Whether the fourth Councell of Toledo did prescribe any such set forme of Oath to be exhibited to the Subiects as is affirmed in the Apology CHAP. II. pag. 365. Cardinall Bellarmine is cleared from a false imputation and a controuersy about certaine words and clauses in the Oath is discussed § 2. pag. 386. Whether Princes haue iust cause to feare murthering by the commaundement of Popes And in disâ—ussing of the particuler example produced by the Apologer concerning the same great fraud and malice is discouered in M. Barlowes falsifying of Authors c. CHAP. III. pag. 394. About the death of Henry the third King of France whether it may be an example of allowance of such murthers As also about the late Queene of England § 2. pag. 414. Of certaine contradictions obiected to Card. Bellarmine and what confidence may be placed in a mans owne good workes CHAP. IIII. pag. 431. Of three other contradictions imputed vnto Card. Bellar. but proued to be no contradictioÌ„s at all § 2. pag. 448. Of the contentions of sundry other Emperours Kings and Princes with Popes of their times in temporall affaires obiected as arguments against the security of acknowledging the Popes Superiority Wherin many fraudes aâ—d forgeries are discouered in M. Barlow particulerly concerning Fredericke the second and his contentions with Popes CHAP. V. pag. 461. M. Barlows more sure and stronger proofes are discouered to be lyes with other things concerning Frederick the second and Innocentius the fourth § 2. pag. 495. Of the Emperour Fredericke the first whose picture was said to haue beene sent to the Soldan by Pope Alexander the third And of the charge of Alexander the sixt touching the death of Zizimus or Gemen M. Barlowes innocent Turke §
both teach and demonstrate the same 15. Another exaÌ„ple in this kind I might here produce touching his doctrine of contradictions and his grosse mistaking of the same but that will come after in due place to be discussed where I examine his dispuâ—ation about the first contradiction obiected to Belâ—armine Now let vs see his ignorance in historyes In historyes what greater ignorance can there be committed then to relate fictions for truth which haue no coherence eyther in place tyme or persons And yet M. Barlow doth this so confidently as he did the former of vnity of names Let one example suffice for this matter by which alone the Reader may of himselfe coniecture of the rest Alexander the third is charged to haue seÌ„t Fredericke the first his picture to the Turke that he might by the same know him kill him also if he came into his hands and that euen whiles he was fighting the Lords battailes which obiection M. Barlow saith pincheth the Pope to the quick And I must confesse that had the matter bene as he doth relate itâ— none can deny but it had bene very barbarous indeed But in the last chapter of F. Parsons ensuing Discussion it is shewed and conuinced most euidently that Alexander was dead at least 7. yeares before that Frederick euer thought of going against the Turke and eight before he came into Armenia VVhat ignorance then is there in this Minister so to write and triumph vpon lyes How shall his Auditory belieue what he teacheth them out of the pulpit that blusheth not to vtter such false and iniurious slanders in a printed booke 16. I might heere most of all insist vpon his dealing with Pope Innocentius the fourth whom he relateth to haue done many things against Frederick the second vpon the credit of Vrspergensis and yet that very Author saith that they fell out betweene Gregory the 9. and Fredâ—rick many years before Innocentius was Pope And yet such a writer is M. Barlow as that he will not only ascribe all vnto Innocentius but also from that supposall draw this most malicious inferenceâ— That he went about to poyson the said Emperour What more blind ignorance and malicious dealing can be imagined then this But for that this is afterwards very largely handled in the last Chapter of the ensuing Discussion I will here no further treat therof nor yet of his telling the Reader out of Binnius Cicarella that Pope Sixtus statua of brasse was for that he was extremely hated after his death cast downe c. which all Rome and the statua it selfe yet standing conuince to be a lye Binnius hath no such word in this Popes life neyther doth Cicarella say at all that it was cast downe But it delighteth M. Barlow like a blynd horse in the battaile boldly to aduenture vpon any thing be it neuer so false fond or improbable The like â— kill he sheweth in making Conradus à Lichetenau to be a different writer from Vrspergensis and Petrus à Vinâ—is to differ from Petrus à Vinea with other infinite like ouersights in this kind which cleerly shew that to be true of himselfe wherwith he charged his aduersary F. Parsons but could exemplify in no particular In storyes he is a great florisher but a false relator of them 17. Neyther is he a more false relator of historyes then an vnkillfull interpreter of the holy Scriptures in which it is strange to see how he tosseth the text what sense he yieldeth and what Commentaryes he maketh thereon and that either by mistaking the meaning of the words or by ridiculous application or by forcing arguments from the same which haue no dependance no coherence or agreement with the place he cyteth yea not sticking â—ometymes to corrupt the very text it selfe with â—ome addition of his owne thereunto to make it conclude more forcibly against vs so saucy he is â—n so sacred a matter I will giue briefly one example â—n ech kind where the Spouse in the Canticles is commended for all manner of vertuesâ— vnder the allegoricall types of Myrh Frankencense and all Aâ—othecaryes dust what thinke you doth Barlowâ—ake â—ake of this dust Doth he interpret it to signifie any particuler vertue Nothing lesse For he saith it is worldly delights of honour and wealth for that 's pâ—luis pigmentarius saith he the Merchants he should say Apothecaryes wisestâ— and quoteth in the margent the Canticles and place where it is to be found And is not this trow you a great commendation of the Spouse that she ascendeth through the desert of this earth with al worldly delights of honor wealth which tickle the eyes and blindes the sight of the wisest What may not be proued by Scriptures where such application is allowed And here to make the best Commentary in M. Barlowes excuse there is at least great mistaking of the true sense of the word dust which I thinke in no other Author besides himself is taken for worldly delights of honour and wealth as neyther in any Dictionary that euer I saw is pigmentarius taken for a Merchant But M. Barlow hath absolute authority to gayne-say both Grammar Scriptures and all manner of learning 18. As for ridiculous application what more fond conceipt could he make then to compare Gods diuine prouidence vnto Rammes-hornes for thus speaking thereof he saith The prouidence of God in gouerning of his Church is like the ruinating of the walls of Hierico by Rammes-hornes it is powerfull not violent spirituall but not visible by meanes weake in shew mighty in â—ffect So he And to omit the ridiculous interpretatioÌ„ or rather inuersion of trumpets into Rammes-hornes whereas they were of mettall as S. Hierome Origen and others affirme or made of horne as some later writers and so to be called rather Cornets then Rammes-hornes with which I thinke no man can souÌ„d any blast to omit this foolish error I say me thinkes M. Barlow in this Commentary is very forgetfull of himself for in another place he maketh these powerfull spirituall and mighty Rammes-hornes to be very weake poore and feeble for thus he speaketh of his Maiestyes Apology with contempt to F. Persons As if saith he the Apologers Answer like Hiericoes walls should presently fall with the blast of a Ramms-horne and a few turnes about it and citeth the same place as before So as now the force of the Ramms-hornes is very feeble for the ruinating of the walls by this reasoÌ„ is more to be ascribed to their owne weakenes then to any power of the Rammes-hornes For in case they were so powerfull spirituall and mighty the resemblance which here Syr William makes should be very simple for I thinke he will not say that the Apologers Answere is more powerfull then Gods prouidence which before he compared to the Rammes-hornes Or if he doe I can say no more but that for his labour he well deserueth to be
Another thing may be to consider what strange Paradoxes he inserts here and there as positioÌ„s dogmaticall which who so listeth in practise to follow shall either haue no religion or faith at all or insteed of Christs Ghospell the Turks Alcoran For exaÌ„ple what more grosse and wicked assertion can there be then to teach that Kings euen against our conscience are to be obeyed For thus he replyeth against F. Persons saying that Kings were to be obeyed propter coÌ„scientiaÌ„ sed non contra conscientiaÌ„ This saith M. Barlow is no sound doctrine in the negatiue part for euen against a mans Conscience the Prince is to be obeyed Againe There is nothing more easy for proofe or euident for dâ—monstration then that obedience is to be enioyned â—uâ—n against conscience if it be erroneous and leaprous and against religion if forged and falsely so called And is not this a very learned Axiome For more euident refutation whereof let vs suppose that for which we powre forth our daily prayers to God that his Maiesty were as all his Noble Progenetors of both Realmes haue alwayes bene a Catholick Prince and as zealous for the truth therof as now he is for the Protestant cause if then he should propose vnto Syr WilliaÌ„ the Oath of Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome so cleerly out of Scriptures and all antiquity proued and euinced to be true but yet in the blind eyes and leaprouâ— conscience of this Minister thought to be false what would he doe therin Will he sweare it to be true But in his conscience he thinketh it to be false and against the Scriptures Will he refuse it But Kings saith he euen against conscience are to be obeyed 25. Neyther doth he help the matter any thing at all by his distinction of leaprous and erroneous conscience for with men of his stamp conscience is like a cheuerell point which they may stretch loose at their pleasure For who knoweth not that in the tyme of Q. Mary they were held to haue erroneous leaprous consciences euen by the iudgement of the greatest deuines in Geneua who manteyned that women were to be obeyed albeit they were Queenes euen in ciuill and temporall affaires But within one yeare after this errour and leaprosy was so transposed that the quite contrary was taught and they were not only held to haue leaprous and erroneous consciences who denyed ciuill obedience but were condemned also as Traitours by Parlament if they did deny Q. Elizabeth to be the Supreme head or Gouernesse of the Church of England So that it was not only lawfull but necessary for her to haue all Temporall and Ecclesiasticall gouernmeÌ„t in her hands as she was Queen which yet in Q. Mary to haue ciuill only euen by reason of her sex was iudged monstrous vnnaturall and repugnaÌ„t to the Scriptures and law of God Many other examples might be produced in this kind to shew this new Gospell to be as constant as the weathercocke which neuer turneth but when the wynd doth change to wit as often as occasions fall out that may fit their purpose for then they will strayne all conscience and honesty also to conforme themselues become good subiects 26. Much like vnto this of obeying Kings against our conscience is his other prophane and barbarous assertion of the Supremacy of the heathen Emperours Nero Domitian and the rest ouer the Christian Church yea which is more strange that the auncient Fathers Iustinus Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian and others acknowledged the same But you must know that M. Barlow in cyting their words for proofe of this paradox is very silent howsoeuer with all coÌ„fideÌ„ce as a maxime in his new Deuinity vncoÌ„trollable he deliuereth the same saying That they acknowledged the Emperors Supremacy indepeÌ„dant vpon any but God And a litle after that Queene Elizabeth in her Supremacy was no vsurper by Nouell-claime but accepted what God himselfe had annexed to her crowne Out of which I first note that by this Doctrine the Great Turke is supreme Head of the Christian Church in Greece and that if M. Barlow were there for such he would acknowledge him Secondly the Pythagoricall manner of speaking which our Aduersaries vse in matters of greatest moment and controuersie For whereas before King Hâ—nry the eight no Christian King euer tooke that title or vsurped any such authority ouer the Church yea for challenging much lesse Constantius was called Antichrist both by S. Athanasius and S. Hilary these men without all profe but not without singuler impupudency thinke it sufficient to sayâ— that the King is head of the Church that he was so acknowledged by the ancient Fathers that not only a woman may haue the same authority of Supremacy in all causes Ecclesiasticall but that also the heathen Emperours had it as annexed to their Crowne and Imperiall Dignitie euen against the whole torrent of all writters the practise of the Christian world and euident text of Scripture it selfe no Fathers no history no monument no shew or shaddow of proofe or authority in former tymes being found for the same without many straines violent enforcements or ridiculous illations made there-upon as in the arguments of the Protestants who haue treated this controuersie is euery where to be seene 27. Lastly the Reader may note that M. Barlow is so poore a Deuine as eyther he knoweth not what belongeth to matters of faith or els is so wicked as against his owne knowledge he will auouch that for true which is checked euen by his owne brethren and conuinced by common sense and experieÌ„ce to be most false to wit that the Protestants and the Puritanes in England differ only in maâ—ters cerimoniall and agree in all â—ssâ—ntiall and substantiall points concerning religion in which this Prelate is very cathegoricall for ignorance as himself elswhere telleth vs out of Fathers and Philosophers though he cite no place or sentence is the mother of aâ—dacious assertions and vndertakings and writteth thus Faine they woulâ— possesse the world that we are at iarre among our selues about our religion whereas the quarrell though it be indeed vnkind yet is it not in this kind sauâ— only for cerimonyes externall no points substantiall c. So he Which though it be kindly spoken as you see yet he must giue me leaue to belieue him at leasure and in the meane tyme â—o aske him one question to wit whether the ProtestaÌ„ts and Puritans vnderstand their owâ—e differences that are between theÌ„ or not If notâ— then we need not belieue M. Barlow as speaking of that which he doth not vnderstand If they doe how commeth it to passe that they condemne ech other of idolatry heresy and false religion as any may read in the Suruey and dangerous Positions set forth by Sâ—â—cliffe and the last Superintendent of Canterbury for the Protestants and Cartwright Gilby Mâ—rtin Senior and others for the Puritans 28. To this answereth M. Barlowes Comicall companion of
Ely of whome whiles he was silent many had some opinion of learning but since all is resolued to lying immodest rayling and some few light Terentian Plautinian phrases which aswel bâ—seeme a Deuine writing in matters of such moment and in defence of so great a Monarch to dally withall as it doth a Bishop to lead a morrice-daunce in his hose and dublet This man I say answereth hereunto that perhaps so the case stood then when those Protestants did write but that is well neere 20. yeares agoe but now it is otherwise Which is asmuch as if he had said that this new beliefe in England is not like the old alwayes one but is refined altered with the tyme and therefore no argument can be drawne from a thing done 20. yeares past for that is to great antiquity for so new-fangled a fayth which is alwaies in motion and hath her waynes changes quarters and full like the Moone But yet I must aske him further how he will proue by any example of the Puritan writers this their change and submission to the Protestants conformity of doctrine with theÌ„ more now then 20. yeares past Are they not still in the same degree of difference and oppositioÌ„ as before Doe they not still deny our Sauiours descent into hell Do they not disclay me from the English Hierarchie Will they acknowledge the Kings Supreme authority in causes Ecclesiasticall as King Henry did challenge it Or will they recall what they haue written of their discipline that it is an essentiall marke of the Church without which there were no Church no Faith no Ghospell and consequently the Protestants to be no Ghospellers to be out of the Church out of the number of the faithfull 29. But for further confutation of both these Superintendents and more cleere explication of the thing it selfe besides what is afterwards said in this booke touching this point it shall not be amisse here to set downe the words of a few Protestant and Puritan late and yet liuing writers what they iudge of ech other in this affayre that our very enemyes may be iudges of the most shamefull assertion of these two Prelates That the Protestants and Puritans differ in matters only cerimoniall and agree in essentiall And the reason that I produce no more in this kind is for want of their bookes which being not worth the sending so far seldome come to our hands I will begin with the Protestants 30. And to omit Thomas Rogers whose testimony is after to be produced in the Discussion it selfe what other thing doth Oliuer Ormerod in his discouery of Puritan-Papisme annexed to his Picture of a Puritan prooue but that the said Puritans are Hereticks and haue ioyned themselues with the Pharisies Apostolickes Arians Pebuzians Petrobusians Florinians Câ—rinthiaÌ„s Nazarens Begardines Ebionites Catababdites Eâ—theusiasts Donatists Iouinianists Catharists And least any should thinke that this coniunction is only in matters cerimonial he laieth to their charge these ensuing heresies that there is no diuersâ—â—y between a Priest and a Bishop that Bishops haue no iuâ—isdiction that all synnes be equall that the Minister is of the essence of baptisme with the like And in the second dialogue he maketh in plaine tearmes this obiection that there is no difference in matters fundamentall but accidentall and then answereth the same that they do differ from the Protestants in some things that are fundamentall and substantiall which he proueth by the article of Christs descending into hell And he might haue proued it further by the aboue rehearsed articles for which Iouinian Aerius and others were reputed by the auncient Fathers and condemned for Hereticks 31. VVith this Oliuer of Cambridge agreeth A. N. of Oxford in his Bible-bearer towards the midest for thus he writeth They refuse to subscribe to the Kings lawfull authority in causes Ecclesiasticall to the article of religion to the booke of Common prayer and the orders rites and cerimonies of our Church nay they dissent from vs in things accidentall and cerimoniall So he By which last antithesis of accidentall cerimoniall differences it is most euident that the former were essentiall fundamentall Neither doe I see how this can be denyed by any for if the Puritans refuse to subscribe to the articles of Protestant religion who seeth not that they approue it not and consequently differ in essentiall points and that M. Barlow ouerlashed very much when he wrote that their vnkind quarrell with Puritans was in another kind and not in matters of religion wherein forsooth out of his great kindnes he will haue them to agree 32. And not to stand more for proofe hereof from Protestants D. Couel cleereth the matter when he saith But least any man should thinke that our contentions were but in smaller points and the difference not great both sides haue charged the other with heresies if not infidelities nay euen such as quite ouerthrow the principall foundation of our Christian faith Thus he And this I thinke is another manner of matter then externall cerimonies or accidentall differences for if this be not a plaine iarre amongst Protestants and Puritans in Religion I would faine know what M. Barlow will more require thereunto but I see S. Gregories wordes verified in these men where he saith solent haeretici alia apertè dicere alia occultè cogitare the heretikes are wont to speake otherwise openly then inwardly they thinke for when they deale amongst themselues then are Protestants and Puritans heretikes and infidells to ech other but when they answere vs then all are friendes all good Christians all vnited in doctrine deuided only in cerimonies accidentall differences This is another manner of equiuocation then any of our schooles will allow and only fit for such as are his schollers qui in veritate non stetit sed mendax fuit ab initio 33. From Protestants I come to Puritans who in this case are no lesse eager playne and resolute then the Protestants but rather more for this in expresse tearmes the Author of the Twelue generall arguments concludeth against all the Superintendents of England togeather that they are Vsurpers and Tyrants and execute an vsurped power ouer the Church and one reason to proue the same is ex concessis for that their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction is deriued from the King else say they it is a flat deniall of his Supremacy as there they shew And in the next reason which is the 4. and last brought in for proofe of their assumption or minor thus they conclude There are no true and sober Christians but will say that the Churches of Scoâ—land France the Low Countryes and other places that renounce such Archbishops and Bishops as ours are as Anti-christian and vsurping Prelates are true Churches of God which they could not be if the authority prerogatiues they claime to themselues were of Christ and not vsurped for if it were the ordinance of Christ
out of Plato Aristophanes and other Greeke Authors may be proued And albeit I will not stand to defend that in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Barlow doth wrong Plutarke and Gracchus in translating headdy vndertaker rather then magnanimous yet doth he offer them open iniury in translating the other epithete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a rash speaker whereas indeed it signifyeth to Graccâ—us his praise a prompt and ready man in speaking eloquent copious and the like But as for the other exprobrations of a most violent spirit impatient of contradiction and the rest he abuseth â—gregiously both Gracchus Plutarke for not only are those reproaches not found there as applyable to Gracchus but the very contrary is sayd of him and therin is he preferred before his brother Caius in these words of Plutarke Vulâ—u obtutu motu blaâ—dâ— erat compositus Tyberius acer Caius vehemeÌ„s Deinde or atiâ— sulnâ—nans Caij dulcior Tyberij pari modo in victu mensa frugalis sâ—â—rplex Tyberius c. lenis etiam placidus confragosus alter seruidus Tyberius both in countenance and motion was aâ—â—â—ble and composed Caius sharpe and vehement and consequently to this the Orations of Caius were thundering but those of Tyberius more sweete and in like manner Tyberiâ—â— was more frugall and simple in his dyet and table then his brother Caius he was also very gentle and pleasing in his behauiour and speach but the other was rough and feruent c. Now then let the prudent reader see and consider how all this doth agree to the description of Tyberiâ—â— set downe by M. Barlow and how true a man he is in all his assertions And how false soeuer he was in the allegation certaine it is that he dealt most wickedly in the application of all to the person of his Holines that now liueth And this much shall suffice about this matter It followeth pag 27. 28. after he had discharged such a storme against the Popes owne person as now you haue heard for his medling in this Oath and giuing his decisioÌ„ therof he sayth that this was to be Iudg in his owne cause alleaging a Poet for his proofe about sur latro one pleading at the barre the other sitting at the bench But doth not the malicious man see that this his cauillation toucheth the interest of all Princes as though they might not be Iudges or giue sentence in cases wherein themselues haue a part if law stand with theÌ„ For to cause other men to do it in their name by their authority is as much as to do it themselues And what did the Pope more in this case theÌ„ this making a decision by counsaile of his learned men according to Christian law that this case of England touched points of Religion concerning the Sea Apostolick which authority no Pope can infringe or diminish without sinne if he would for that it was giueÌ„ not only to him but to his antâ—cessors and successors in like maÌ„ner to indure for the good of the whole Church to the worlds end But saith M. Barlow it had bene plaine dealing in the Pope if before he had sent his Breues of Interdiction he had acquainted his Maiâ—stie with encounters of doubt that bred the quarrell and the ouer-swaying reason that carried him to the negatiue Very wisely spoken and worth the wit of M. Barlow And would his Maiesty haue admitted the messenger or message who seeth not that there is nothing heere but trifling and caueling But I may adde also scoulding for he breaketh presently into a most desperate blast of rayling against F. Persoâ—s calling him trayterous Absolom that careth not to set his â—â—â—e friendes land yea to see his natiue soile on a light fire so he may purchase the Popes fauour All which is spoken with much passion little reason for that the probability is much more that Maister Barlow flattereth the Kinges Maiesty for hope of preferment whereof he is capable and hath gotten possession of a good part already then â—a Persons the Pope whose state and condition of life hath no need of such preferment nor can it be proued that euer Father Persons spake for a fee forward and backward as M. Barlow hath done in his best Patrones cause As for the authority of the sixt Councell of Carthage about appellations to Rome noted in the margent it is not worth the answering both for that the words nor sense alleadged by him are there found and the controuersie about Appeales to Rome from Africa is so handled by me at large in my last Reckoning with M. Morton and he found so faulty and defectuous in that accomptâ— as if M. Barlow will take vpon him to pay that debt and to answer that only Paragraph for him I shall say that he is his friend indeed Wherefore I expect the euent In the very next lines following M. Barlow doth so brokenly recite my wordes about Mâ—â—â—is aliena another mans haruest for so did the Apologer write that English Catholikes are to the Pope that he maketh neyther me nor himselfe to be vnderstood Read I pray you his relation of my wordes pag. 29. numb 5. and see whether you can vnderstand him about Mâ—ssâ—â—aliena My words were plaine inough for thus I wrote page 12. numb 20. by him cited For first about putting the Popes hooke in anoâ—â—er mans haruest supposing as we do that we â—â—â—aâ—e of Catâ—olike people onely and according to Catholike doctrine and in matters belonging to Catholike mâ—ns soules and consciences it cannot be called Messisaliâ—na another mans haruest that the Pope dealeth in England with such kind of people in such cases as well as in Spaine France Flaunders Italy Germany Polonia and other States and kingdomes for that they are no lesse appertayning to his â—â—ock care charge and haruest then the rest Neyther doth the materiall separation of our Iland separate vs from the vnion of one body nor of one obedience to one and the selfe same generall head and Pastour no more then it doth froÌ„ the vnion of one beliefe and of one number and forme of Sacraments of one manner of seruice and other like pointes belonging to the internall and externall vnity of Catholike Religion And is not this plaine inough How doth he reply You shall heare it in his owne wordes and he will so imbroyle himselfe therin as he will let fall neere halfe a dozen of absurdities ignorances and open falsities by the way Do you stand attent then â— thus he bringeth his answere to my former discourse of Messis aliena This is a 〈◊〉 argument no doubt quoth he the Pope hath to do in England saitâ— the Censurer because some Catholikes suppose he hath but before this supposall be brought into a positiue resolute conclusion it will aske a longer time then such a Pamphlet c. Where you see first that he quite mistaketh me eyther
onely concerne ciâ—ill obedience All which speach of his if I should grant as by hiâ— it is vttered yet doth it not so much as impugne any of the former foure waies wherby it was shewed that diuers points of Catholike religion are touched in the said Oath and impugned therby so as a Catholike man cannot admit the same without preiudice of his conscience which these groundes do nothing impugne But now let vs see how well grounded are these his two groundes impertinently brought in for some shew of answere The first is that ciuill obedience to a lawfull Prince requireth the subiect to sweare not onely affirmatiuely that he is his lawful Soueraigne but also negatiuely against any intruder challenger or vsurper which we deny not but do deny that the Pope as supreme Pastour ouer alâ— Christendome is to be called an Intruder Challenger or Vsurper when for preseruation of Christian Religion he doth interpose his authority for the restraint of any Christian Prince that is or ought to be vnder his iurisdâ—ction And as for his second ground that this authority of the Pope is a temporall intrusion and no spirituall iurisdiction we deny it in like sort for though it be temporall in some respects yet is it no intrusion but giuen by Christ himselfe as contained in the most ample spirituall charge and commission deliuered to S. Peter for gouerning of all soules belonging to the sayd charge which cannot be sufficiently gouerned and prouided for if there had not beene such power left also whereby euill Princes might be restayned from peruerting their Kingdomes especially by infection of heresy And whereas for proofe of this temporall intrusion as he calleth it he saith that for to doe me a fauour he will remit me to T. M. the elder to wit to Thomas Morton â—is full SatisfactioÌ„ part 3. whom he saith I doe feare as the racke who among many others haue canuased saith he this point in a Confutation to the Popes confusion I will to quit his fauouâ— send him backe to the sayd M. Morton againe recanuased by me vpon this point in two seuerall Bookes of answere wherein so many notorious lyes are charged and convinced vpon him as may serue not only for his Confutation but also for the Confusion of all his friendes wherof this Copes-mate M. Barlow may well be one and so much the more iustly be shamed therein for that he may be presumed to haue seene one at least of my sayd bookes and the lies therein so openly layd forth and pressed as he cannot but with impudency speake here as he doth in remitting me to M. Mortons canuase and that I â—eared it as the racke c. But now let vs come to looke a little into M. Barlowes impugnation of the Popes authority ouer kinges This authority of the Pope saith he if it be a spirituall Iurisdiction it must be either from heauen or of men grounded vpon law either Diuine or Ecclesiasticall Nam quod ampliâ—u est à malo est sayth a deuout Father to a great Pope all execution therof not deriued from eyther of these implyes a Tyranny importes no right If vpon diuine law then eyther the Old or the New Testament not the Old the Priestes among the Iewes had no such authority ouer theiâ— Kinges eyther vnited to their Priesthood by God or assumed by themselues confessed so by a Iesuite that the Staâ—e of the Iewes was rather earthly then heauenly therfore the carnall part was more eminent that is Kinges had the soueraigntie ouer the Priestes Not in the new for then S. Peter should haue had it eyther when the Keyes were giuen him Matt. 16. or wheÌ„ that trebled Pasce was inioyned him Ioan. 21. If it be so then had he this Iurisdiction directly from Christ and â—â—â—uersally ouer the world but that is not so saith Robert the Cardinall this Robert his Eccho but only ouer Christian Princes and that indirectly and obliquely in ordine ad Deâ—â—â— nay neither directly nor indirectly saith Sanders for there being a dubble power of ChristiaÌ„ fortitude constant suffering couragious attempting that power of suffering as the more excellent Christ chose as the fittest sibi suis for himselfe and those that belong to him or if you will for himselâ—e and his Apostles So then to suffer oppression vnder kinges not to inferre vpon them Rebellion and disloalty was the power Apostolicall in respect of Princes This is M. Barl. his assault which I haue thought good to set downe at large both faithfully and punctually in his owne very words as my custome is not contractedly and perfidiously peruerted as he euery where vseth to set downe myne and that in a different letter as often I am forced to complain as though they were my wordes indeed And now to this passage of his I say that there is much impertinent stuffe many falsities sundry great abuses misapplications and wrong senses from the Authors owne meaning whom he citeth For first it was impertinent to cite that sentence of S. Bernard Nam quod amplius est à malo est for that he vseth the same to a far different purpose as euery man may see that will read the place in his second booke de Consideratione which particular quotation Maister Barlow did pretermitt citing only Bern. ad Eugen. therby to make the finding thereof more hard S. Bernard hauing written fiue bookes to Eugenius Secondly that which he alleageth out of Salmeron that the State of the Iewes was rather earthly then heauenly and therefore the carnall part was more eminent that is Kings had the soueraignty ouer Priestes is notably both peruerted and falsifyed For first Salmerons wordes speaking of the Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Iewes in comparison of that which was giuen to the Christian Churches are Synagoga Iudaeorum dicebatur terrenum potiùs quà m caeleste regnum The Synagogue of the Iewes was called rather an earthly then a heauenly kingdome meaning that their Power was but earthly their Sacrifices earthly their promises and blessinges earthly in respect of the heauenly and spirituall power Sacramentes Sacrifice and Promises of the new Testament Nor doth he make comparison betweene the Kings power and the power of Priestes calling the former earthly and carnall the other heauenly as most falsely seditiously M. Barlow here after M. Morton doth auer but only the Ecclesiasticall authority of the Iewes Synagogue with the excellent spirituall power of the Christian Church And as for the comparison betweene kingly Priestly eminency amongst the Iewes the said Salmeron in the same place doth not only affirme but proueth also by sundry arguments and one by the worthines of the Sacrifice offered in the first place for the Priest before the King that Priestly dignity was aboue Princely in that people and much more amongst the Christians So as here is notorious falshood on M. Barlowes behalfe which is much the more
bables This was the fact of a Pagan Atheist What doth the matter appertayne to vsâ— do we esteeme so litle a false Oath Why then doe Catholickes stand so much in England against the receiuing of this Oath Why doe they put themselues in danger of leesing the Princes fauour their goods theyr lands their Countrie their liues rather then to take the same againâ—â— their consciences It seemeth rather that M. Barlâ—â— concurreth with Lisanders opinion who will haue theâ— take it although it be against their consciences for thiâ— is to haue leuem iurisiurandi religionem little conscience of an Oath But yet he goeth further in this matter and cannot get out of it for he will needs proue this my distinctioâ— and as he calleth it Equiuocation not only to be Pagaâ—iâ—â— but more then Heatheniâ—h that euen by Aristotles testimony in his Booke of Rhetoricke to King Alexander his wordes are these Nay this delusion is more then Heathenish â—or Aristotle was of opinion that he which doubteth in his Oath for thâ—â— i◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sweare with a mentall addiâ—ion hath neither â—ear oâ— Goâ—â— vâ—ngeance or shâ—me oâ— mens reproof But truely I hauing conâ—idered the place of Aristotle how far his meaning is from that which here is alledged in his name me thinkes that M. Barlow should feare these two last pointes of Gods vengeaÌ„ce mans reprofe For Aristotle hath not a word of dâ—â—bâ—ing in his Oath or of mentall addition or reseruatioÌ„ in an Oath bâ—t only of plaine forswearing For his argument is hauing treated in that booke to Alexander how by the preceptes of Rhetoricke an Orator may proue or improue any fact or crime that shall come in question as by signes by arguments by coniectures by probability by witnesse and by torture he coÌ„meth at leÌ„gth to shew how it may be proued or improued by an Oath His words are these Iufiuranduâ— est cum diuina veneratione dictio probationis expeâ—s c. An Oath is a speach without proofes with diuine veneration wherefâ—re if we will confirme our Oath and the credit thereof we must say thâ—â— no man truly will forsweare himselfe both in respect of the â—eare of punishment from the Gods as also of disgrace among men and we may add that men may be deceyued but the Gods cannot But now if the aduersary will flie also to an Oath and we would extenuate or discredit the same then we must shew that the man that will not sticke to dâ—e euill will not sticke also to forsweare himself for that he which thinketh he may ly hidden from the Gods after he hath committed an eâ—ill â—act will thinke that he may also escape punishment after he hath â—orsworne himselfe This is Aristotles discourse which maketh no mention at all as you see of doubting in an Oath and much lesse of mentall addition or reseruation And albeit M. Barlow do bouldly and ignorantly say that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by all Interpreters doth signifie peierare to periure or forsweare doth import also to sweare with mental addition yet is this only a fiction of his nor can he bring forth one example out of Aristotle or any Greeke writer which doth vse it in that sense nor could Aristotle vse it so in this place where he vseth the sayd wordes thrice in these lines by me alleaged alwaies for peierare to forsweare and neuer for doubting or mentall addition Nay it cannot stand with any sense of Aristotles discourse for if Aristotle should say that no man truly will doubt in his Oath or haue a meÌ„tall reseruation both for feare of Gods chastisement discredit amongst men it were a ridiculous speach for that men do not knowe when a mentall reseruation is made or when a man doubteth in his Oath but when he forsweareth himselfe it may come to be knowne And in like manner it is more ridiculous to say against the aduersary as Aristotle teacheth vs that he which sticketh not to doe wickedly will not sticke to doubt also in his Oath or to vse a mentall addition which no man I thinke would vnderstand or can read without laughing Wherfore seing that Aristotle speaketh only of forsweâ—ring and that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so taken by him and by all other Greeke Authors wherof we might heâ—â— alledge infinite examples M Barlow cannot alleadge one for his fiction it is euidently seene that he miserable man is sore pressed when to sustaine his bad cause he is forced to falsifie and corrupt Authours by peruerting and wresting them aside quite contrary to their meaning purpose But now we shall passe to some other poyntes THE REASON IS EXAMINED WHETHER GODS PROVIDENCE MIGHT SEEME DEFECTVOVS if no authority had bene left in the Christian hurch to restraine and punish euill Kings AND Whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings as M. Barlow maketh him CHAP. III. I SAID in my former Letter as in the precedent Chapter hath bene seene that I could not perswade my self that such Catholikes as were sayd to haue accepted the Oath did meane to abiure al authority of the Pope for depoâ—ing temporall Princes for any cause whatsoeuer for that therin they should contradict the gâ—nerall consent of all Catholike Deuines and confesse that Gods prouidence for the conseruation and preseruatiâ—â— of his Church and Kingdome vpon earth had bene defectuous For that he should haue left no lawfull remedy for so great perilous an euill as that way might fall out by the exorbitant actions of some incorrigible Prince To this my speach M. Barlow answereth thus If by Catholike Deuines he meaneth Scriptures Councells Fathers Stories for a thousand yeares after Christ the Reader must take it for a mendacious vanity and let it passe for no better Wherto I reply that as I do meane it it is no mendacious vanity but a religioâ—â— verity for that I meane by Catholike Deuines in this place all such of that profession as haue handled the question particularly of this temporall Authority of the Pope in certaine vrgent occasions which are principally Scholasticall Deuines especially those of this age that haue written against all sorts of Heretikes that denied the same And albeit M. Barlow in his rayling vayne do challenge the Schoole-men as blasphemously detorting Scriptures yet he that shall read them with iudgment and attention without this furious passion of hatred against them and lacke of capacity to vnderstand them shall quickly perceiue that their skill in Scriptures Councels Fathers Stories is far superiour by infinite degrees to that of M. Barlow and his Mates that crake so much against them and their sincerity in expounding them according to their true meaning and is also without comparison more sound as may appeare by the many grosse and wilfull corruptions which I haue noted in him before in that kind And albeit in some hundreds of yeares after Christ there had
Israel Dâ—mâ—tam posteriora tua interficiam de Achab mingentem ad parietem Si mortâ—us fuâ—rit Achab in Ciuitate comedent eum canes si autem in agro comedeÌ„t eum volucres caeli The hinder part of thy life I shall cut oâ— shall kill of thy stocke that shall make water agâ—inst the wall And if that Achab dye in the Citty the dâ—â—gs shall eâ—t him and if he dye in the field the birds of the â—airâ— shall deuoure him And the like to his Queene Iezabell The doggs shall eat â—ezabel in the field of Iezraell And finally to let passe Baltasar Ieroboam Iebu Manasses and many other Kings whome God threatned dared and performed also the same without any such respectiue warinesse as M. Barlow doth fancy his wordes and meaning are plaine and generall in Iob that when Princes are warned and do not amend Si non audierint transibunt per gladium If they obey not they shall passe by the sword And this is Gods plaine speach and plaine dealing for that Princes to him are no more then poore men all flesh and dust albeit whilst they liue vpon earth beare rule in his place he will haue them respected obeyed and honoured as his Deputies in all that they shall command not contrary to his lawes which he will haue obserued both by Prince and people and detesteth all such prophane flattery as heere we haue heard vttered by M. Barlow And so much for this matter Now then to come to my former proposition that the Prouidence of God might seeme to be defectuous if his diuine Maiestie had left no remedy for so great an euill it is founded vpon all those places of Scripture where it is sayd that Gods workes are perfect as Deuter. 32. and that they are made in wisedome Psalme 103. vers 24. that is to say in most high wisedome ordinata sunt saith S. Paul Rom. 13. they are according to order well ordered the like Out of all which is inferred that whatsoeuer the perfection of wisdom good order doth or can prescribe in any worke that is to be presumed to be in Gods works yea with far higher perfection then mans wisedome can reach vnto Whereby it followeth that as when a prudent humane Law giuer instituteth a CommoÌ„-wealth he prouideth for all inconueniences that by humane probability may fall out vnto the same so much more Christ our Sauiour being not only man but also God must be presumed to haue prouided sufficiently and aboundantly for his Kingdome and Common-wealth which is the Christian Church purchased with his owne bloud for preuention of all hurtes and euills imminent to the same which seemeth had not bene done if he had left this greâ—t gâ—ppe vnstopt and this mayne mischeife vnprouided for which might come thereunto by the incorrigibilitie of some deplored Prince impugning the same for so much as all humane Law-giuers and Erectors of Common-wealths doe neuer faâ—â—e coÌ„monly in this particuler for the defensiue part and much lesse may it be thought that Christ our Sauiour would be wanting in so important a point Neyther is this any way blasphemous or disgracefull to our Sauiours infinite wisdome and prouidence as M. Barlow would most impertinently seeme to vrge but highly rather to his honour for somuch as wee professe that he hath prouided for this euill and the Protestants hold that he hath not For as when a man beholdeth a house made by some excellent Architect and considereth all the partes commodities thereof with prouision for all vses and prouidence for all cases that may fall out he admireth the coherence dependance of one thing vpon another prayseth and extolleth the wisedome and foresight of the Author saying If this or that had not bene foreseene and prouided for as excellently it was it had byn a great want and defect but being prouided for it doth infinitly commeÌ„d his sayd care wisedome foresight and prouidence And euen soe in our case when a man considereth the admirable excellency of Christ our Sauiours wisedome in other pointes concerning the gouerment of his Church how carefully and orderly he hath prouided for the same in all necessary points as in part the holy Apostle doth describe both to the Corinthians and Ephesians appointing some Apostles some Prophetes some Euangelists some Doctors some Pastours ad consummationem Sanctorum in opâ—s ministerij in aedificationem Corporis Christi for the consummation of the Sayntes and for the works of the ministery for the building vp the body of Christ which is his Church with exact order prouidence and subordinatioÌ„ of things men and offices one to another with sufficient power and authority for euery party to doe his office these things I say being well considered do inferre that it cannot possibly stand with such high wisedome prouidence of our Sauiour to leaue his sayd body and Church vnprouided of sufficient authority to preuent or remedie so mayne a calamitie as might fall vpon the sayd Church by temporall Christian Princes if there were no restraint or punishment for them Nor do the Protestants themselues pretermit to vse such kind of arguments and consequences for their owne defence when they deale with domesticall Aduersaries to wit with Protestants of other Sects As for example when the Puritan refuseth all Bishops Archbishops and other distinction of subordination in the Clergy what vrgeth in effect the Protestant on the other side but that it belonged to Christ his diuine prouidence to leaue such distinction and subordination and consequently that it might be noted for defectuous if he had left but the Puritan parity in all The like passeth with the Lutheran who denying the temporall Prince to be Head of the Church and confesseth consequently that their Church is headlesse vpon earth but only dependeth on Iesus Christ as head in heauen is refuted by the English Caluinists with the same argument of the defect of Gods prouidence if he had not prouided some Head on earth also And much more holdeth this argument against the Anabaptists who hold that Christ hath left no temporall power or Magistrate in his Church to iudge or condemne and especially to death for any cause whatsoeuer for that he sayth nolite iâ—dicare do not iudge which I doubt not but our English Protestants will reâ—ute by this argument of Gods prouidence which would haue bene iudged insufficient if he had left so many Common-wealthes and Kingdomes as are conteyned within this Christian Church without any temporall Magistrate at all Whereby remayneth confuted the inâ—ulse insultation of M. Barlow against the same for that our inference is noâ— as he fraudulently telleth his Reader except the Popes triple Crowne had power to depose Princes Gods prouidence had bene defectuous but if his diuine Maiesty hauing prouided most sufficiently for all other inconueniences it would haue bene a note of defect in the same not to haue prouided for this case of extreme
for the last which is heresie he hath brought in two such Authours and authorities against himselfe as in the whole ranke of antiquitie he could not find 〈◊〉 two more fit and forcible to conuince him and his of Heresie and consequently also as himselfe inferreth of more griâ—uous and damnable Idolatry And he would not haue brought them in to the purpose he doth if he had vel micam salu any the least part of prudeÌ„ce For if I should by the occasion of these two Fathers here brought iâ— frame a Syllogisme against M. Barlow his religion taking the maior proposition out of these wordes here set downe and adding the minor out of these two Fathers most manifest assertions he would neuer be able to auoyd the conclusion and if he can I doe prouoke him to the triall The maior proposition is this according to S. Aâ—guâ—â—â—â—â— and Vincentius Lyrineâ—sis that liued not long the one after the other Heresy is Idolatry and heretickes are Idolatours yea the basest kinde of Idolatours that do woâ—ship the fancies of their owne braynes This propositioâ— is here brought in and grâ—unted by M. Barlow as trueâ— and auouched by these two anâ—ient Fathers the minorâ— doe adde and doe offer to proue which is this But according to the iudgement and writing of these two Fathers concerning the nature and property of heresy and heretickes M. Barlowes religion if it be the Protestants is conuinced to be heresy and the professors thereof heretickes Ergo also they are Idolatours and of the basest kinde of Idolatours and damnably worship the fancies of their owne braynes This Syllogisme consisting of M. Barl. his maior my minor the conclusion following of them both I could wish he would coÌ„sider wel And for so much as I know he wil deny the minor I do offer to ioine issue with him vpon that point only if he please reducing all our combate begun betweene him and me to this important question much more profitable to the Reader then these wranglings wherin wee are now conuersant Whether according to the doctrine and iudgement of S. Augustine and Vincenâ—ius Lyrinensis coÌ„cerning heresyâ— Protestants or RomaÌ„ Catholickes be truly Hereticks Let vs lay all other quarrels I say aside and handle only this graue and weighty Controuersy if he hath so much confidence in his cause in the doctrine of these two Fathers But for so much as I do imagine that M. Barlow will pause a greate while and consult before he accept of this offer and perhaps expect vntill the designed new Colledge of Protestant VVriters be vp at Chelsey or els where I will in the meane space inuite the Reader to study and make familiar vnto himselfe the two aforenamed Authors about this point of heresie and hereticks And as for Vincentius Lyrinensis it wil be easie for that it is but a little booke though weighty in substance and it is printed both seuerally and togeather with Tertullian his excellent booke of Prescriptions against Hereticks both of his and these our dayes yea illustrated also with diuers short notes and Commentaries both of Ioannes Costerus and of Iâ—stus Baronius a learned man and Counsellour to the Arch-bishop Electour of Meâ—tz conuerted from Protestant Religion principally by reading and pondering that goulden Treatise of the sayd Vincentius The other Authour S. Augustine is far more large and difficult to be studied throughly in respect of the multitude of his workes but there is a collection made of them into foure bookes by a learned man of our time with the title of Confessio Augustiniana wherin is gathered the iudgement of S. Augustine about all the controuersies of our time which he hath handled in his workes so many hundred yeares agoe before the new names of Protestants or Papists were euer heard of and to the diligent reading of this Booke I would exhort all indifferent men that haue care of their soules and vnderstand the latin tongue For that S. Augustine being the man he was both in learning and sanctity and so speciall a Pillar of Christ his Church in his dayes which was about foure hundred yeares after Christ when yet the true Catholike Church is granted to haue flourished it followeth that what doctrine he held for true and Catholike in his time must also be now what held to be heresy we may also boldly hold the same and what rules he gaue to know and descry the one or the other may serue vs now to the same end I will not set downe any particuler places in this Epitome of S. Aâ—gusâ—iâ—â— for the Reader to repaire vnto aboue others for they are clearly propounded in the beginning of the worke and reduced vnto seuerall heads and Chapters But if M. Baâ—low or any of his shal be content to ioine with me vpon the issue before mentioned we shall haue occasion to examine the worke more exactly And this hath bene spoken by occasion of M. Barlowes answer once for all about Catholikes vexed consciences with feare as he termeth theÌ„ which full wisely he will haue to proceed of Idolatry superstition heresy as you haue heard but sayth nothing of inforcemeÌ„t of their consciences by penal lawes though that be the only matter in questioÌ„ But it may be he will say somewhat therof in his second resolution about this matter for this is but his first let vs heare him then further if you please Againe saith he where the mind hath no certayne stay for â—eâ— vltima resolutio in matters and cases of faith conscience there must necessarily follow a miserable vexaâ—ion which is the case of thâ—se Catholickes whose dependance for resolution must rest vpon the supreme Pastours determination then which what is more vncertayne for what one Pope decrees the other disallowes Here againe you see he runneth from the whole purpose and talketh in the ayre for the Catholikes doe not demaund of him What is the cause of their vexed consciences but rather doe tell him what it is as you haue heard in my words before rehearsed to wit the pressing of them to sweare against the iudgement of their owne consciences or els to incurre displeasure and suspition of disloyalty with his Maiestie as also the penalty of the law And what then doth our Doctour tell vs a tale of vltima râ—solutio in matters cases of fayth and conscience to be the cause of their trouble and affliction Truly it is as far from the purpose as the other before was and no lesse also against himselfe to make mention of this vltima resolâ—tio which more conuinceth him and his of heresy then any other demonstration that can be vsed to that effect For that they hauing abandoned the authority and iudgemeÌ„t of the knowne Catholike Church from which finall resolution in matters of controuersy is to be taken according to that rule of S. Augustine Si quis quaestionis difficultate â—alli metiâ—t Ecclesiaâ— consulat if any man teare
to be deceiued with the difficulty of this question let him take counsaile of the Church meaning thereby the vniuersall knowne Catholike Church they hauing abandoned this way of Diâ— Ecclesiae tell the Church and of recourse thereunto as to the Columna firmamentum veritatis the pillar and stay of truth so called by S. Paul what remayneth then to theÌ„ for their vltima resolutio but their owne heads and priuate iudgments which are those fancyes oâ— their own braynes which M. Barlow recyted before our of S. Augustine And this shall I make manifest by the ensuing example Yf fiue or six learned men of different ReligioÌ„s should meet togeather in Germany or Transiluania to wit a Roman Catholike a Hussite an Arrian a Trinitarian a Lutheran a Zuinglian or a Caluinist for that all these different Religions are there publikely professed and both by speaches books and sermons preached and maintayned and that you should demauÌ„d of each one of these the reason of his fayth and his vltima resolutio or last rest about the same you should find their answers far diâ—fereÌ„t For if you should demand of the Catholicke for example why he belieueth the Reall Presence he would answere you because it is reuealed by God If you aske him further how he knoweth it is reuealed by God he will say it is conteined in his word eyther written or vnwritten or both Yf you aske him againe how he knoweth it is coÌ„teined in Gods word in that sense that he defends it he will answere for that the knowne Catholike Church doth tell him so by whose authority he is taught what is Gods word and how it is to be vnderstood And if you demand of him further how he knoweth the Church to haue such authority and the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church he will alledg for the former diuers Scriptures acknowledged also by the opposite Sectaries as that before mentioned wherin she is called The pillar and stay of truth and for the second he will alledge so many demonstrations of the beginning growth increase continuance succession and visible deâ—cent of that Church confirmed from time to time with so many miracles other manifest proofes and arguments of credibility as no man in reason can contradict the same so as his vltima resolutio or last stay is vpon the Church testifying vnto vs tâ—e word of God and testified by the same But now the other fiue though neuer so learned in their profession will not answere you thus but being demaunded euery one of them seuerally why they are of that peculiar sect more then of any other and why they are different from the Catholicke in the former article of Reall Presence they will all answere conformably for the first step that they doe build vpon the word of God yea the writteÌ„ word only But if you go a step further demand of them how they know that this written word is well vnderstood by them for so much as they are of fiue different Religions founded by them all vpon the same written word here now they cannot passe any further to the foresaid Catholike Church for finall resolutioÌ„ as the first did for that they all do impugne her but ech man must defend his different interpretation of that written word by his owne iudgement or els by the iudgement of his owne Congregation and Sect which in effect is the same So as these fiue learned men do remaine irreconciliable as you see for want of a ground from whence to take their vltima resolutio and do shew themselues according to the former speaches of Vincentius and S. Austine both Heretikes and Idolatours in that following the â—ule resolution of their owne heads they adore as many Gods as they haue selfe-conceipts for ground of their fayth And will you say that this poynt of vltima resolutio was wisely brought in by M. Barlow being a thing wherby himselfe and his are condemned to haue no last resolution or certayne ground at all for their beliefe but only their owne â—eads But oh sayth he you depend for resolution vpon the Pope which is so vncertaine as what one Pope decrees another disallowes But I haue now answered that we depend vpon the Catholicke Church as propounding vnto vs and expounding Gods word and we depend of the Supreme Pastour as head of that Church vnto whoÌ„ we rest assured by Gods owne word and promise that he will assist him with his spirit for all resolutions in matters of fayth which shal be necessary for his sayd Church nor can M. Barlow prooue that what one Pope decrees in these matters of fayth another disallowes One of them may well alter matters of policy gouernment Ceremonies or the like but for poynts of fayth we do allow M. Barlow sixteene hundred yeares to seeke them out And if in so long time he could haue produced but one true example I suppose we should haue had it I doe willingly pretermit a great deale more of idle impertinent speach which M. Barlow vseth about this matter of Catholiks Consciences â—hewing indeed to haue little himselfe nor yet to know well what it meaneth and much lesse speaketh he to the present purpose For he telleth vs first that if pressure of conscience may serue for good Plea of Recusancy to Princes lawes there is neyther malefactor for crime nor hereticke for schisme but that will make that his Apology Wherunto I answere that causes persons merits and demerits are to bee distinguished in this matter and not to be confounded For what hath the malefactour for crime or hereticke for schisme to doe in this affaire From the first I thinke the aduersaries themselues will deliuer them or at leastwise theyr neyghbors among whome they dwell and as for the second of heresy and schisme we haue spoken now already sufficiently to shew where those imputations may and must lye not vpon the Catholickes who are opposite to that charge Secondly then he telleth vs that we lacke the light within vs which should driue away the darkenesse of our consciences and purge the eye therof from mist dust lime And vpon this he maketh vs an exhortation that we take heed of Caligo tenebrarum in this life that dusketh the eies of our vnderstanding to perdition especially by worldly delightes desire of honour and wealth this being puluis pigmentarius sayth he the Merchants dust which tickleth the eies and blindeth the sight of the wisest as do also enuy by emulation preiudice of affection wilfulnes by opposition which like vnto lyme tormenteth the eye and peruerteth the iudgement c. And is not this a very graue and serious exhortation comming from such a man as he is knowne to be so clearely inlightned as neyther mist nor dust nor lyme of ambition can sticke vpon a man so hating worldly delights honour and wealth as no part of this merchants dust can tickle his eyes Are not his mortifications
lesse the true substance of things handled by him I do pretermitt as very fond and impertinent the next passage that ensueth and is the last in this matter in M. Barlow his booke where he maketh this demaund But what if there be none or few that make such conscience or take such offence at the admission of the Oath as he speaketh of To this question I say it is in vaine to answere for if there be so few or no Catholikes that make conscience or scruple to take the Oath the contention will be soone at an end But presently he contradicteth himselfe againe taking another medium and saying that there would be none if they were not threatned by vs to haue their howses ouerturned as some Donatists sayth he confessed of themselues by the witnesse of S. Augustine that they would haue bene Catholikes if they had not bene put in feare ne domus corum euâ—rtâ—râ—ntur by the Circumcellians perhaps which M. Barlow sayth may spiritually be applyed to our threatning that such as take the Oath shall be accompted Apostataes and to haue renounced their first fayth and to be no members of the Catholike Church and finally that we shall remayne branded in euerlasting record with Balaams infamy that taught Balaac to lay a scandall or occasion of fall to the people of Israell To all which I answere first that he that layeth forth the truth of Catholike doctrine vnto Catholike men may not iustly be sayd to threaten or terrify but to deale sincerely and charitably with them laying truth before their eyes what their obligation is to God before man and how they are bound as members of his true Catholike Church to hould and defend the vnity and integrity of â—ayth and doctrine deliuered by the same though it be with neuer so much temporall danger And as for laying a scandall wherby they may fall into the ruine of their soules it is easy to iudge whether wee do it rather that teach them to deale sincerely with God and their Prince wherby they shall preserue their peace and alacrity of conscience or you that indeauoâ—r to induce thâ—â—â—â— sweare and doe against the same wheâ—eby they shall be sure to leese both their peace in this life and their euerlasting inheritance in the next THE ANSVVER TO AN OBIECTION BY OCCASION VVHEROF IT IS SHEVVED THAT POSSESSION and Prescription are good proofes euer in matters of Doctrine AND The contrary is fondly affirmed by M. Barlow CHAP. V. THERE remaineth now for the finall end of this first Part to examine an obiection that might be made by the aduersary which I thought good by â—â—ticipation to satisfy in the very last number of the first parâ— of my Letter And it was that wheras we complaine of so great pressures layd vpon vs for our conscience especially by this enforced Oath some man may sayâ— that the liâ—â— course is held in the Catholicke States against themâ— whome we esteeme as heretickes I shall repeate my owne words and then see what M. Barlow answereth to the same Here if a man should obiect quoâ—h I that among vs also men are vrged to take Oathes and to abiure â—heir opinions in the Tribunalls of Inquisitions and the like and consequently in this Oath they may be forced vnder punishment to abiure the Popes temporall authority in dealing with Kings I answere first that if any hereticke or other should be forced to â—biure his opinions with repugnance of conscience it should be a sinne to the inforcers if they knew it or suspected it neyther is it practised orâ— permitted in any Catholicke Court that eueâ— I knew But you will reply that if he doe it not he shal be punished by dâ—ath or otherwise as the crime requireth and Canons appoint and consequently the like may be vsed towards Catholikes that will not renounce their old opinions of the Popes authority But heere is a great difference for that the Catholike Church hath ius acquisitum ancient right ouer heretickes as her true subiects â—or that by their baptisme they were made her subiectes and left her afterwardsâ— and went out of her and she vseth but her ancient manner of proceeding against them as against all other of their kind and quality from the beginning But the Protestant Church of England hath nullum iuâ— acquisitum vpon Catholickes that were in possession before them for many hundred yeares as is euident neither was there euer any such Oath exacted at their hands by any of their Kings in former Catholicke timesâ— neither is tâ—eâ—e by any Catholicke forraine Monarch now liuing vpon 〈◊〉 and consequently by no â—eâ—son or right at all can English Catholicke men be either forced or pressed to this Oath against their conscience or be punished beâ—â—â—â— or destroyed if for their conscience they refuse to take tâ—e same humbly offering notwithstanding to their Soueraigne to giue him all other dutifull satisfaction for their temporall obedience and allegiance which of loyall Catholicke subiects may be exacted And this shall suffice for this first point concerning the contents and nature of this Oath This was my speach and conclusion then And now shal we take a vew how it is confuted by M. Barlow First be amplifyeth exaggerateth with great vehemeÌ„cy the torments and tortures of our Inquisitions which are vsed as he saith with the most extreme violence that flesh can indure or malice inuent wherin he sayth more I thinke then he knoweth and more perhaps then he belieueth and at leastwise much more then is true in my knowledg For of twenty that are imprisoned there not one lightly is touched with torture and when any is in the case by law appointed it is knowne to be more mildly then commonly in any other tribunall But let vs leaue this as of least moment and depending only vpon his asseueration and my denyall and let vs passe to that which is of more importance for iustifying the cause it selfe to wit by what right of power and authority the Roman Church proceedeth against heretickes and how different it is from that wherby Protestants pretend to be able iustly to proceed against vs for matters of Religion First of all he sayth that I do take as granted that the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church which we deny sayth he and the chiefest learned of their side could as yet neuer conuict our denialls Wherto I answere that if themselues may be iudges that are most interessed in the controuersie I do not meruaile though they neuer yield themselues for conuicted But if any indifferent iudgment or triall might be admitted I do not doubt but that their euiction and coÌ„uiction would quickly appeare and many learned men of our dayes haue made most cleare demonstrations therof by deducing the Roman Church doctrine and fayth from the Apostles dayes vnto our times successiuely as namely Doctour Sanders his Booke of Ecclesiasticall Monarchy Cardinall Baronius in the continuation of his Annales Gâ—nebrarâ—
in his Chronology Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuersies two speciall Bookes also in English not long agoe especially published about that matter the Three 〈◊〉 of England and the Answer to Syr Edward Cookes Reports where it is shewed that from age to age after the Apostles the selfe same Church of theirs was continued throughout the world with acknowledgment of the preheminence and Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the same Church which course of proofe was held also with the Ancient Fathers S. Augustine Tertullian Irenaeus and others that brought downe the descent of the true Catholike Church by the succession of the Roman Bishops as Heads of the same Mâ— Barlow demaundeth of me in what sense I take the word Catholike when I suppose the Roman Church to be the Catholicke Church For if I take it sayth he for Vniuersall then Rome being but a particuler Citty and the true iurisdiction therof confined within a limited Diocesse or Prouince the Roman Church cannot be the Catholicke or Vniuersall Church for that it is but a particular Prouince But if sayth he I take Catholike for the profession of the true fayth as S. Cyprian doth calling that Church of Africa the Catholike Church then cannot the Romish Church neyther in this sense be the Catholik Church for that which the Prophet Esay said of the Iewes Church Her gould is mixed with drosse and she whose fayth was plighted in Christ is become an Adultresse may be sayd also of the Roman Church of this day and so cannot be the Catholike Church c. Which are two such mighty arguments as well declare the poore mans misery in the defence of his cause For to the first I would aske M. Barlow whether one man may not haue two Iurisdictions or rather one Iurisdiction extended differently to two things one more particuler the other more generall As for example the Mayor of London hath his particuler gouerment first and immediatly ouer his owne howse family and peculiar lands and yet besides that he hath iurisdiction also ouer all the Citty And to make the case more cleare let vs suppose that he hath both the one the other from the kingâ— shall it be a good argument to say that he is Gouernor of his owne particuler landes house and family which is knowne to be confined and limited to such a part of the Citty therfore he vsurpeth by stiling himself lord Gouernour of the whole Citty And the like demaund may be made of the Kings authority first and imediatly ouer his Crowne lands which is peculiar vnto him and limited with confines but yet it impeacheth not his generall authority ouer the whole Realme Euen so the Bishop of Rome hath two relations or references the one as a seuerall Bishop ouer that people and so had S. Peter who was Bishop of the same place euen as S. Iames had of Ierusalem S. Iohn of Ephesus and the like and besids this he hath an vniuersall Superintendency and iurisdiction giuen him ouer all as Head of the rest So as Catholikes doe not deny but that the Church of Rome as it maketh a particuler Prouince or Diocesse is a member only of the Catholicke Church not the whole though a principall chiefe member by the reason of the emineÌ„cy of her Pastour that the sayd Pastour therof is but a member also of the Catholik Church but yet the chiefest meÌ„ber wherunto all the rest are subordinate that is to say the head guid therof So as this is poore argument as you see But the second is more pittifull if you consider it well for if we take Catholike sayth he for the profession of the true faith as S. Cyprian did when he called the Church of Africa the Catholike Church then cannot the Romish Church be the Catholike Church And why for that her gould is mixed with drosse as the Prophet Isay sayd of the Iewish Church in his tyme. But here are two propositions an antecedent and consequent and both of them false The antecedent is that as the Church of the Iewes in the Prophet Isay his dayes being in her corrupt state was not the true teaching Church in respect of the naughty life vsed therein so neyther the Church of Rome in our dayes being full of the same sinnes bad life can be the true Catholicke Church this antecedent I say is most â—uidently false and impertinent for that Isay the Prophet in the place cited doth not repâ—â—hend the Religion of the Iewes but their life and â—â—â—ners nor doth he so much as name their Church or Synagoge or taxe their false teaching For albeit the wicked King Manasses that afterward slew him did perforce set vp false Gods among the Iewes yet did not only he and other Prophets then liuing to wit Oseas Amos Micheas Iâ—â—â— Ioel Nahum Habacuc with the whole Church and Synagog not admit the same but resisted also what they might which is a signe that their faith was pure and good Wherfore Isay in this place alleadged nameth not their Church or Religion as hath bene sayd but expresly nameth the Cittie of Hierusalem wicked liuers therin saying Qâ—â—modo facta es meretrix Ciuitas fidelis plena iudicy Iâ—stâ—ia habitauit in ea nunc autem homicidae Argentum tuum versum 〈◊〉 in scoriam vinum tuum mixtum aqua Hovv art thou made an harlot thou faithfull Citty that wert once full of iudgement and iustice dwelled therin but now murtherers Thy siluer is turned into drosse thy wine is mixed with water Doth here the Prophet speake of factes think yow or else of faiâ—h Of wicked life or of false doctrine and if it be euident that he speaketh of manners as he doth indeed then how false is the dealing of M. Barlow in bringing it iâ— for proofe of false teaching and to conuince that as the Church of the Iewes could not be the true Catholicke Church of that time in respect of the corrupt maÌ„ners vsed in her so cannot the Church of Rome at this day for the selfe same cause be the true Church But I would demande of M. Barlow what other knowne Church had God in those dayes wherin a man might find true doctrine besides that of the Iewes which he sayeth was not the true Church Will he say perhaps of the Gentills But they liued all in Idolatry And if a GeÌ„tile would in those daies haue left his Idolatry in the time of Isay the Prophet and haue desired to haue bene madâ— one of the people of God by true instruction whither could he haue gone for the same but only to the Iewish Church And whither would Isay haue sent him but to the Gouernours thereof Both false and impious then is this antecedent about the Iewes Church but much more the consequent that would draw in the Roman Christian Church by this example which hath no similitude or connection at all For neither can he proue that it hath such
common Catholicke Church nor in that vnitie without good life especially if he should die in any of these sinns mentioned before by S. Paul that goe bâ—fore or follow him to Iudgement The minor proposition is that Q. Elizabeth is noted most grieuously in both these kinds Ergo there may be a iust feare of her euerlasting damnation Neyther doth this preiudice Almightie God his extraordinarie mercies to whome he listeth we speake here of the ordinarie way of saluation reuealed vnto the Church and in that sense onely shal be sayd somewhat to the Minor proposition wherin standeth the cheife moment of this our question That Queene Elizabeth was excommunicated by name by two or three Bishops of Rome whome we hould for supreme heades on earth of the knowne Catholike Church no man can deny that she was likewise excommunicated by conâ—equence though not by name by the General Councel of Trent in all tâ—ose Canons anathematizations which were made against Protestants for their doctrine which she also held no maÌ„ can doubt of as neither but that she was coÌ„prehended in all the cases that touched her faith or actions in Bulla Coenae euery yeare repeated and pronouÌ„ced against Heretikes Schismatikes Vsurpers of Ecclesiasticall power and authority whereof she auouched herselfe to be Head in her owne kingdomes And now that this externall visible Church called Catholike and knowne by that name throughout the world aswell by friends as enemies which S. Augustine sayth is an argument that it is the true Church indeed is the selfe same visible Church that was in the foresaid Fathers times and visibly deduced by succâ—ssion from their dayes to ours is so manifestly to be proued as no man can with reason deny the same and consequently if it were so certaine a damnation to be excommunicated or put out of that Church as now you haue heard the said Fathers to affirme then is it soe now aâ—â—o and then goâ—th hard the case of Queene Elizabeth as you see for that it is not knowne that she was euer reconciled or taken into the sayd Church againe And as for the other point concerning other sinnes meant or mentioned by the Apostle as on the one side I will not take vpon me to determine what or how many or how great she committed so on the other considering the frailty of mankind the temptations of the triple enemie the world the flesh and the diuell the many occasions she had in her free state of life to fall into sinne and that in the space of foure and fourty yeares at least after the entrance to her Crowne she neuer vsed the ordinary help of ancient ChristiaÌ„s for purging her soule which the foresaid Fathers doe teach vs to be not onely contrition but also Sacramental Confession absolution of the Church her state I say being this it must needs follow that so many as belieue and acknowledg this Sacrament of the Church to be necessary to saluation when it may be had yea is câ—mmaunded by the sayd Church vnder paine of Censures to be reiterated euery yeare once at least if not oftener that this woman neuer making the same and dying in that state cannot be saued according to the iudgment of all those that belieue follow that Church that condemneth her which Church being spread throughout the whole world as it was in S. Augustines time and hauing obtayned the same priuiledge which he tooke to be sufficient to demonstrate the true Church to wit that she is knowne by the name of Catholicke both to friends enemies true Christians and Heretickes according to the common sense of men for he proueth that neuer heretical Congregation could obtayne to be so much as called Catholike throughout Christendome or to be knowne by that name this thing I say being soe we see what a dreadful preiudice this may appeare to be against the euerlasting saluation of Queene Elizabeth For if there were so great mayne a difference betwene bodily Phisitianâ—â— both for number skil experience antiquity and authority about the temporall death of any Prince as there is here in all these qualities betweene the spirituall Phisitians of Christendome Catholike and English Protestants concerning the eternall death of Queene Elizabeths soule to wit that so many more temporall Phisitians in number without comparison so much more learned so much more experienced in corporall Phisicke as the other exceed them in spirituall yea further and that they had so many deadly Symtomes Chryâ—es and Prognosticons conâ—â—med out of the authority of Hipocrates Galâ—â— and other ancienâ— Phisitians all tending to mortality as the other haue out of the doctrine iudgment and perpetuall practice both of the said Church and holy Ghostly Fathers of the same foâ— Queene Elizabeths euerlasting death I doubt nothing but that the sayd Princes temporall life would be held for very dangerous or rather his death were very probable Neither did I say any more of the spirituall death of Queene Elizabeth most likely to accompany her corporall I beseech the mercie of Almighty God that it be not soe And here I might adde also another plaine familiar proofe out of the said ancient Fathers and namely out of S. Augustine to the end we may see how his Church did agree with ours or rather the vniuersall known Catholicke Church in his dayes with that Church that hath the same name notes in ours For besides that number of authorities which I cited out of him before as agreeing with other Fathers that it is impossible for an Heretick Schismatick or an ExcoÌ„municated person dying in that state to be saued he goeth further in an other place into more particulers for being required by his freind Quod-Vult-Deus to set downe vnto him a briefe Catalogue or enumeration of all the particuler heresies that the Catholicke Church had condemned from the beginning of Christianitie vnto their time or did hould for heresies in those dayes he set downe aboue fourescore and added in the end that if any man should professe or belieue any of those heresies or any other that had or sâ—ould spring vp he could not be a Christian Catholicke and consequently neyther be saued but euerlastingly damned Now in this Catalogue or booke of heresies which was also gathered vnto their dayes by Philastrius and S. Epiphanius before him S. Augustine setteth downe for damned heresies some that Queene Elizabeth did manifestly â—ould and so was thought to hould and for any thing that we know died in the same as namely those heresies of the Hereticke Aërius that solemne fasts appoynted by the Church were not to be obserued but euery man or woman to fast when they would least they should seeme to be vnder the law So sayth that hereticke And then which maketh most to our present purpose that prayer and sacrifice were not to be offered vp for the dead nor did profiâ— them any thing at all vpon which later poynt I am induced to make
Sacraments care of soules possessing Cures and Benefices absoluing from sinnes spirituall iurisdiction and all Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy deryued from hence And are all these thinges only Ceremoniall without substance or essence of religion Doth M. Barlow discharge his duty of a Champion eyther towardes his king or his old Lord from both which it seemeth alâ—eady he hath receaued large fees in bringing both their authorities in Ecclesiastical matters to be meere Ceremonies No man I thinke will sue to be his Clyent hereafter iâ— he can plead no better But let vs yet see a little further how he hath aduanced his Maiestyes spirituall authority Thus he writeth of his being Moderator in the Conference betwene the Puritans and Protestants This difference sayth he about thinges indifferent his Maiesty desirous to reconcile vouchsafed his Princely paynes to moderate mediate In which wordes first doe you note againe his often repetition that they were thinges indiffereÌ„t to wit whether his Maiesty should haue Supreme Primacy in Church causes or renounce the same and cast it downe togeather with his Scepter before the Presbytery of the Puritans and whether the Lord of Canterbury should leaue of his Lordship and Graceship and become a simple Minister equall with the rest And so likewise M. Barlow himselfe to leaue the Sea of Lincolne and title of Lordship which none that knowes the humor of the man will imagine that he holdeth for a thing indifferent or a meere Ceremony This I say is the first Notandum for if these things be indifferent what need so much a doe about them And the second Notandum is that he saith that his Maiesty did moderate and mediate in this Conference which is a very moderate and meane word indeed to expresse so high and eminent Authority Ecclesiasticall as sometimes they wil seem to ascribe vnto his Maiesty For who cannot moderate or mediate in a Conference if he haue sufficient learning and knowledge of the cause though he haue no eminent authority at all to decide the same But who shall determine or define the Controuersy Here no doubt M. Barlow wil be in the brakes For that a little after being pressed with the free speach and deniall of S. Ambrose vnto Valentinian the Emperour when he medled in Ecclesiasticall affairs and in particuler when he sent for him by Dalmatius a Tribâ—ne with a Notary to come and dispute in the Consistory before him his Counsell and Nobility with the Hereticall Bishop Auxenâ—ius S. Ambrose refused vtterly to goe yeelding for his reason that in matters of faith and religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops which deniall M. Barlow well alloweth saying that Ambrose did well in it and sayd well for it his fact and reason were both Christianlike But suppose that his Maiesty had sent for the Bishops to dispute and confer with the doctors of the Puritan party in his presence as the Emperour Valentinian did S. Ambrose that they had refused to come with the same reasoÌ„ that S. Ambrose did would M. Barlow that wrote the Conference haue defended the same as good and lawful Or would his Maiesty haue taken the same in as good part as ValentiniaÌ„ did I doubt it very much as also I doubt whether S. Ambrose if he had disputed would haue suffered ValentiniaÌ„ suppose he had bin learned to haue moderated mediated in that disputatioÌ„ as M. Baâ—low saith his Maiesty did in this But if without effect that he could not conclude who should giue iudgment of the matter The Bishops They were party and theyr whole interest lay therein The Puritan Doctors They were also a party and therby partiall His Maiesty could not doe it according to M. Barlowes doctrin in this place if any point of religion were handled therein Who then should iudge or giue sentence The Church saith M. Barlow in another place But who maketh that Church Or who giueth authority of iudgement to that Church if the supreme Head and gouernour haue it not in himself Do you not see how intricate this matter is hard to resolue And according to this as it seemeth was the effect and consequence of this meeting if we belieue M. Barlow himselfe who maketh this question Did thâ—se great and Princely paynes which his Maiesty tooke with the Puritâ—ns worke a generall conformity And then he answereth VVith the iudicious and discreet it did wherof M. Barlow was one but the rest grew more aukward and violent So he But all this while if you marke it there is nothing said to the point for which all this was brought in to wit why the like fauour had not beene shewed to Catholikes for a Conference also with them about their Religion M. Barlow doth touch some number of reasons as that our opinions doe touch the very head and foundation of religion That his Maiesty was perfect in all the arguments that could be â—rought for the aduerse part and that he throughly vnderstanding the weaknes of them held it both vnsafe and vnnecessary to haue them examined That the Protestant religion being throughly well placed and hauing so long continued is not now to be disputed c. Which reasons being either in themselues fond or against himselfe I will not stand to refute One only contradiction wil I note that our argumeÌ„ts being so weake yet that it should be vnsafe to haue them examined and that the long continuance of Protestant religion in England should make it indisputable whereas more then ten times so long prescription of Catholike religion could not defend it by shew of a conference or dispute hâ—ld at VVestminster at the beginning of Queen Elizabeths raigne when the same was changed and put out And finally I will end this with a notable calumniation insteed of a reason vttered by M. Barlow why this Conference ought not to be granted to Catholikes for sooth For that euen in their common petition for toleration they â—isâ—hed his Maiesty to be as great a Saint in heaueÌ„ as he is a King vpon earth shewing thereby saith he that gladly they would be rid oâ— him but wâ—ich way they care not so he were not here And may not this Prelate now beare the prize for calumniation and Sycophancy that out of so pious an antecedent can inferre so malicious a consequent The Catholickes doe wish vnto his Maiesty both life present and euerlasting to come here a great King and there a great Saint M. Barlow seemeth not to care much for his eternity so he may enioy his temporality by the which he himselfe gayneth for the present and hopeth euery day to do more more it importâ—th him litle how great a Saint his Maiestie be in heauen so vpon earth he liue longe to fauour him and to furnish him with fat benefices And thus he inforceth me to answere him contrary to my owne inclination for repressing somewhat his insolent malignant speach which is the most
the name of diuine things the possession of this or that materiall Church Or if he would be so bold now I assure my self he would not haue bene so in Queene Elizabeths dayes whose spirituall Supremacy though femininae seemed much more to be esteemed of him then this now of his Maiesty as preseÌ„tly will appeare The third refusall of S. Ambrose to the Emperour was when the said Emperour sent his Tribunes and other officers to require certaine Vessels belonging to the Church to be deliuered which S. Ambrose constantly denyed to do answering as before hath bene set downe That iâ— thâ—◠〈◊〉 could not obey him and that if he loued himselfe he should abstâ—â—â—e to offer such iniurie vnto Christ c. which answer also M. Barlâ—â— well alloweth signifying therby that he would aâ—â—werâ— in the same sort to the magistrates officers of King Iamâ—â— if he should send them vpon any occasion to require at his hands the CoÌ„munion cup or any other such vessels belonging to any Church in Lincolne Diocesse And will any man belieue this that he will be so stout But it is a pastime to see how he chatteth about this matter as though he would say somewhat indeed but yet saith nothing at least to the purpose Let vs heare what he bringeth Things separated saith he to holy vse are not to be alienated to 〈◊〉 vsage Here now euery man will laugh that remembreth how the Vessels Vestments and other such things dedicated vnto God and consecrated to Ecclesiasticall vses in the Catholike Church haue bene handled by Protestants taken away defaced and conuerted to prophane vses which this man I presume dareth not to condemne Let vs heare him further God hath in them saith he a 〈◊〉 right as King Dauid confesseth first as his gift to man secondly as mans gift agayne to him which twofold cord tyeth them so strong as it is an Anathema or curse for any man not consecrated to chalenge them yea for them which are consecrated if they do not only pâ—â— them to that vse alone for which they were dedicated And do you see now heerâ— how zealous M. Barlow is become vpon the suddayne for defence of consecrated vessels in the Church What Vessels haue they consecrated thinke you Or what kind of consecration do they vse therein He sayth it is an anathema for any person not consecrated to chalenge them the sacred Emperour and King do demand them in this our case if their persons be sacred then in M. Barlows sense they are also consecrated and they may demaund these Vessels which as I said are very few in the Protestant Church and if they had beene as few in the Church meant by S. Ambrose it is not likely that the Emperour would haue troubled himselfe so much in sending Tribunes and other officers for the same But suppose the vessels were of like number price and value in the one and the other Church Yet I thinke M. Barlow will not deny but that the manner of consecrating them was far different which may be seene in the â—â—gâ—â—churgians themselues in the fourth Century and by S. Ambrose in his second booke of Office cap. 29. where he putteth downe two sorts of Church-Vessels dedicated to diuine vses the one initiata hallowed or consecrated and the other not yet hallowed and that in the time of necessity to redeeme Captiues or to relieue the poore the second sort are first to be broken and applied to these holy vses but the former with much more difficulty for that they were now hallowed Which difference I thinke the Protestants do not greatly obserue in their hallowed Vessels S. Gregory Nazianzen in like manner talking of such consecrated Vessels as were vsed in the Church in his time sayth that it was such as it made it vnlawfall for lay men to touch them which I thinke M. Barlow will not lay of his Communion-Cup which all men take in their hands But now to the question it selfe Do you thinke that M. Barlow would deny vnto King Iames that Communion-Cup or any other Vessels of a Church if he should as earnestly demand them as Valentiniaâ— the Emperour did when he sent his Tribunes and other chiefe officers to require them of S. Ambrose If he would what kind of Supremacy doth he allow his Maiesty in spirituall matters if he may be denyed and disobeyed in these also that are in a certaine sort mixt and in some part conioyned with temporall respects And truly when I do consider with my selfe with what degrees M. Barlow doth descend and go downeward in defending of the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of his Maiesty bringing it as it were to nothing from that high pitch wherin King Henry the eight both placed it and left it his children King Edward and Queene Elizabeth continued the same I cannot but wonder and admire the prouideÌ„ce of Almighty God that hath wrought the ouerthrow in effect of that new Protestant Idoll of spirituall Authority in temporall Princes euen by Protestants themselues Iohn â—aluin beginning the battery as all men know calling it Antichristian the Puritans following him in that doctrine and now M. Barlow though vnder-hand and dissemblingly confirming all that they haue sayd or doâ—â— therin The first pitch wherin King Henry did place the same was as appeareth by the Statute it selfe in the twentith six yeare of his raigne That he and his herres should be taken â—ccepted and reputed the only Supreme head on earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia and should haue and enioy â—â—nexed â—nd vnited to his Imperiall Crowne asiâ—eli the title style therof as also all honours dignities preheminences iurisdictions priâ—iledges to the said Dignity of supreme Head belonging c. Wherby is euident that the Parlament gaue vnto him as great authority ouer the Church of EnglaÌ„d as the Pope had before And this very fame authority was translated after him to his Sonne King Edward though a child yea all Preachers were commanded to teach the people that his Minority of age wâ—â— no impediment to his supreme spiritual gouernment for that a King is as truly a King at one yeares age as at â—wenty so as the exception made by M. Barlow that Valentinianâ—he â—he Emperour was yong when he commanded S. Amâ—roâ—e to dispute before him maketh nothing according to this Doctrine against his spirituall authority if he were Head of the Church as King Edward was And further the Parliament in the first yeare of King Edward explaining this authority hath these words That all authority of Iurisdictions spirituall and reÌ„porall is deriued and deducted froÌ„ the Kings Maiesty as supreme head of the Churches and Realmes of England and Ireland vnto the Bishops and Archbishops c. And the like was passed ouer also to Queene Elizabeth by a Statute in the first yeare of her raigne wherin it is said That all such iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall as by any spirituall
or Ecclesiasticall power hath hitherto bene or may be lawfully exercisedâ— for the reâ—ormation and correction of all maÌ„ner of errors heresies schismes 〈◊〉 c. all and all manner of Iurisdiction priuâ—ledges and preheâ—â—â—â—â—ces in any wise touching any sprituall or Ecclesiasticall iurisdâ—ctiâ—â—â— with in the Realme was giuen vnto her and vnited vnto the Crâ—â—â—e This was the high doctrine in those daies of the Priâ—ces supreme Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power oâ—er the Church of England no lesse theÌ„ of the Pope himselfe ouer his Church of Rome But now of later dayes and by later writers the case seemeth wonderfully altered for not only haue they taken away the name title of Head of the Church which was treason by King Henries Statutes to deny and many were put to death for not yielding therunto but haue taken away the authority also it selfe if we respect the substance and shifting in words to seeme still to retaine somewhat Wherin among others M. Barlow seemeth eminent and vnder a shew of defending the Kings supremacy to take it quite away For let vs heare first how he handleth the question about the Princes authority for iudging in cases of religion which is the principall of all the rest He both proposeth and solueth the question thus May not then saith he a Prince iudge in cases of Religion and Faith No not iudicio definitiuo to determine what is sound Diuinity or not and so impose that vpon the consciences of men for faith which he alone defines to be so but iudicio executiuo or iurisdictionis he may and ought when the Church hath determined matters of saith command the prosessing therof within his Kingdomeâ— as the soundest and worthyest to be receaued This is his determination whereby it is euident that he permitteth only vnto the King to execute that which his Church in England to wit the Bishops and Clergy therof shall determine about matters of religion which is no one iote more of power in Ecclesiasticall matters then that which Catholicks do ascribe vnto their â—emporall Princes to execute what the Church determineth but yet with this difference of much more dignity that they are bound to the execuâ—ion only of that which the Vniuersall Church shall determine not of their owne subiects alone as it falleth out on the behalfe of his Maiesty of England in this case In which point also I do not see how he can wind himselfe out of this maze that must necessarily follow of his owne doctrine to wit that one should receiue from another that the other receiued from him As for example if the Bishops being his Maiesties subiects as well in spirituall as temporal affaires haue no spirituall iurisdiction but froÌ„ him as the Statute of King Edward doth determine and on the other side his Maiesty to haue no authority to define of any matter belonging to religion at all but only to execute that which the Bishops do define it seemeth that they receiue from his Maiesty that authority which they deny to be in him and so that he giueth them the thing which he hath not in himselfe but is to receaue from them Moreouer it is euident by this doctrine of theirs that the Bishops do make their Courtes Tribunalls for matters of Religion to be absolutly greater then the Kings for that they do allow him no other power for Iudging in spirituall matters but only to execute that which they shall define and determine And albeit for dazeling the simple readers eyes M. Barlow doth in this place fumble vp a certaine distinction not wel vnderstood by himselfe takeÌ„ out of some Schoolmen as he saith noting Occam in the margent that there be three parts of this executiue iudgmeÌ„t the one discretiue to discerne the other directiue to teach others the third decretiue which third he saith is in the Prince both affirmatiuely to bind to the obseruing of that which is so tryed and adiudged and negatiuely to suppresse the contrary and that this last is to Iudge for the truth and the former of defining is to iudge of the truth Yet doth all this reach no further but to the power of execution of that which others haue determined which may be called a power of impotency in that behalfe for that therin he is subiect and not Superiour especially if it lye not in his power either to execute or not to execute as he shall think best which M. Barlow here denveth saying That he may and ought to execute when the Church hath determined But on the other side if he haue power and liberty to execute or not to execute then is the other power of defining in the Bishops to small purpose For that they may define and he not execute his iudgment being that they haue defined eâ—ill and by that way becommeth he their Iudge againe to define whether they haue defined well or no. And this is another circle or labyrinth which I see not how M. Barlâ—â— will easily auoid I doe pretermit diuers other childish thinges that be in this speach of his as where he propoundeth thus the question as first VVhether a Prince may iudge in cases of Religion â—â—d saith as though these two were Sinonyma and all one Whereas religion contayneth many cases as well of life manners and cerimonyes as of faith in all which cases it may be demanded how far the King may be iudge Secondly he saith that the King cannot define and determine what is sound Diuinity or not which is far from the purpose For the question is not whether the King may iudge and determine what is sound Diuinity or Theologie but what is matter of faith and what is to be belieued or not be belieued by a true Christian within his realme Thirdly in like manner when he saith that the King hath only iudicium executiuum or iurisdictionis as though they were all one whereas executio and iurisdictio are two different things iurisdiction is more properly in that party that defineth then in the other that executeth for that the former commaundeth and the second obayeth Fourthly his terme also of discretiuum ascribed by him vnto all Christians to haue power to try spirits whether they be of God or no besides that it seemeth contrary to that of S. Paul to the Corinthians who reckoneth vp discretion of spirits to be a peculiar and seuerall gift vnto some alone saying Alij discretio spirituum c. is nothing well applyed by him to iudicium execuâ—iuum for that it appertayneth rather to iudicium definitiuum for somuch as those that haue power to define to determine of matters are principally to iudge of spirits not their subiects to iudge of theirs for that other wise there must needes ensue an inextricable confusion of trying iudging of one the others spirits As if for example the Bishops oâ— England should try condemne the spirits of the Purytans and they agayne the spirits of the Bishops by
Monasteries of Virgins eyther to say Masse or otherwise but such as be of approâ—ed vertue How peace is to be held betweene Bishops Earles and other Great men especially in execution of Iustice That weightes and measures be iust and equall and that none worke vpon holy dayes That all Tythes be payd al ancient possession mantayned to the Churches That no secular courtes be held in Churches or Church porches That no Earles or other Great men do fraudulently buy poore mens goods c. These then were the pointes of Reformation decreed in that Councel of Arles at the instance of Charles the Great who was so zealous a Prince in this behalfâ— as he caused fiue seueral Councels to be celebrated in diuers Partes of his Dominions within one yeare to wit this of Aâ—les another at Towers a third at Chaloâ—s a fourth at Mentz the fifth at Rhemes and another the yeare before which was the â—ixt ad Theodonis villam which is a towne in Luxemburge Al which Prouincial Synodes are extant iâ— the third Tome of Councels togeather with the Canons and Decrees which are such as could not be put in execution but by the temporall fauour authoritie and approbation of the Emperour in such matters as concerned his temporall Kingdome and iurisdiction Wherfore iâ— for these respects the Councell did present vnto the Emperour these Canons to be coÌ„sidered of by his wisedome whether any thing were to be added altered or taken away for the publike good of the Common Wealth no Controuersy of faith being treated therin what is this to proue eyther that the Emperour in spirituall matters was superiour to the said Bishops or that if he had proposed vnto them any such Oath as this is wherin by proâ—essing their temporall Allegiance they must also haue impugned some poynt of their faith that they would haue obeyed him And so much of this Councell This was then my speach yielding furthermore a reason why I did not stand vpon the places of some particuler Councels alleadged for that the discussion of this one made manifest all the rest that they tended only to this end that they proued temporal obedience in subiects towards their Princes in temporal affaires which Catholicks deny not and so in effect they proue nothing to the purpose in hand But yet it shall be good to ponder a little what M. Barlow bringeth in against that which heere I haue written First he saith that not only these Prouinciall Councels of Arles in France and diuers others submitted themselues wholy to the Emperour Charles the Great in most humble termes but the foure Generall Councels also sâ—mmoned at the beck and command of the Emperour submitted themselues for the validity and establishing of their Decrees to his most Royal assent And within three lines after againe VVhole Councels saith he submitted themselues in all dutifull reuerence to their Soueraignes not only in matters of temporall affaires but in faith and religion And yet further in the very next page The Emperour saith he that hath the sole authority to summon a Councel hath the sole power to make good or voyd what it concludes And we must note that he putteth downe the words to make good or voyd in a different markable letter therby to signify that this is an Axiome of great solidity And yet I suppose that he could not be so forgetfull or negligent as not to see that all this is quite contrary to that which he wrote within three leauesâ— before to wit that in cases of religion and faith Princes could not iudge any thing iudicio definitiuo to define or determine but only executiuo to put in execution that which the Church determineth But now if not only the Councell of Arles and other Prouincial Councels but the first foure General Councels submitted themselues also for the validity and establishment of their Decrees which are knowne to haue bene concerning points of religion and faith vnto the Emperours Royal assent so as whatsoeuer was decreed there by the Church this not a Prouincial or National Church only of England but the whole Vniuersall Church gathered in those first foure Councâ—ls should haue no validity except the Emperour approued the same this is more then iudicium executiuum to execute that which the other had determined For here the Emperour doth iudge of al yea euen of the iudges themselues and of their Iudgments and decrees and consequently hath the last and supreme iudgment deâ—initiue to define and determine what Decrees are truly and rightly made and to ratify or make void what he shall think good which is as much as we do or can ascribe vnto the Pope And this is confirmed in like manner by M. Barlows second assâ—ueration That Councels must submit themselues in all dutifull reuerence not only in matters of temporall affaires but of faith and religion alsoâ— What can be â—poken more plainly in contradiction of his former assertion And what more absurdly then that which followeth in the third place That the temporall Prince hath sole power to make good or voydâ— what the Councell concludes For that hereby all the Conciliabula or vnlawfull false Councels that met togeather often in the primitiue Church as that of Aâ—iminum for the Arians against the Catholickes that of Carthage against Cecilianus that of Constanâ—inople against Marcellus that of Antioch against Athanasius that of Burges in France against S. Hilary diuers other hauing the assent and approbation of hereticall Emperours then bearing rule shal be good and lawfull Councels and all other Councels gathered for the Catholicks against these to be voyd of no validity Do you see heere M. Barlows manner of writing and how he plungeth himself aboue the eares in contradictions without marking or respecting what he said before so he may say somewhat for the present But do you thinke that he wil stand to this now No. For that in the very next ensuing leafe he being pressed by me to answere what submission that was which the Councel of Arles made to Charls the Great for his approbation and whether it were of matters concerning faith he runneth quite backe againe denying that Emperours haue any such authority To iudge saith he definitiuely which are matters of faith or no is not for the Emperour but to ratify by hiâ— assent and command by his authority what the Church or Councell so assembled hath defined to be matter of faith is proper to Emperâ—â—rs and Kings Which words if you consider them well do coÌ„taine most euidently the contradictory of that he sayd before That Councels were to submit themselues for the validity of their Decrees to the Emperours Royall assent and that not only in temporall affaires but in faith and â—eligion and that they only haue power to make good or voyde all conclusions of Councels which contayneth manifestly power also to define it is but a shift to say heere that it is not for the
was this I find no such thing in the Breue at all as that Temporall Obedience is against faith saluation of soules nor doth the Breue forbid it nor doth any learned Catholike affirme that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholike Deuines that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before though they may explane what poynts are to be held for matters of faith and what not vpon any new heresies or doubts arising which articles so declared though they be more particulerly and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith and so to be belieued after the declaration of the Church then before yet had they before the selfe same truth in themselues that now they haue Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them but this declaration only As for example when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt he made her not the true Mother therby nor added any thing to the truth of her being the Mother but only the declaration Wherfore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of fayth is a meere calumniation amongst the rest So in my former writing now we shall examine what M. Barlow replyeth about these two points In the first whether the Oath do containe only temporall Obedience he is very briefe for hauing repeated my words by abbreuiation that the Popes Breue forbids not temporall Obedience No saith he it forbids the Oath wherin is only acknowledgment of ciuill Allegiance But this we deny and haue often denied and still must deny and craue the proofe at M. Barlowes hands who though he hath often affirmed the same yet hath he neuer proued it by any one argument worth the reciting which notwithstanding is the only or principall thing that he should proue For that being once proued all controuersie about this Oath were ended And it is a strange kind of demeanour so often and euery where to affirme it and neuer to proue it He addeth for his reason in this place He that prohibits the swearing against a vsurping deposer denieth temporall obedience to his rightfull Soueraigne and sayth neuer a word more But what doth this proue Or in what forme is this argument For if vnto this Maior proposition he shall add a Minor that we do so or that the Popes Breue doth so we vtterly deny it as manifestly false For who will say that the Popes Breue prohibits swearing against an vsurping deposer Or what Catholike will say that his refusall of swearing is against such a one and not rather against the authority of his lawfull Pastour Wherfore this proofe is nothing at allâ— But he hath another within a leafe after which is much more strange for he bringeth me for a witnes against my selfe in these words VVhat hitherto sayth he he â—aâ— laboured to confute and now peremptorily denyeth that the Breue â—â—insayeth not Obedience in ciuill things he plainly now confesseth and grâ—â—teth If this be so that I do grant the Popes Breue to prohibite obedience in temporall thinges then will I graunt also that M. Barlow indeed hath gotten an aduantage and some cause to vaunt but if no word of this be true and that it is only a fond sleight of his owne then may you imagne to what pouerty the man is driuen that is forced to inuent these silly shifts Let vs lay forth then the mystery or rather misery of this matter as himselfe relateth it The Pope saith he being iustly taxed for not expressing any cause or reason of the vnlwâ—ulnes of the Oath the Epistler saith there are as many reasons that it is vnlawfull as there are points in the Oath which concerne religion against which they must sweare And is not this a good reason say I Is not the forswearing of any one poynt of Catholike Religion sufficient to stay the coÌ„science of a Catholike man from swearing But how doth be proue by this that I confesse the Breue to forbid temporall Obedience Do you marke I pray you his inference and consider his acumen But there is no one poynt sayth he in the Oath that doth not so to wit that doth not concerne Religion euen that first Article which meerely toucheth ciuill obedience I do sweare before God that King Iames is the lawfull King of this Realme c. Ergo I do grant that the Breue forbiddeth the swearing to all the Articles and consequently leaueth no Obedience ciuill or temporall But do not you see how he contradicteth himselfe in the selfe same line when he sayth that there is no one point that concerneth not religion euen the very first Article that toucheth meerly ciuill obedience For if it touch only and meerly ciuill obedience â—hen doth it not touch religioÌ„ in our sense For that we do distinguish these two deuiding the Oath into two seuerall parts the one conteyning points of temporall obedience for acknowledging the right of his Maiesty in his Crownes the other concerning points of Catholike Religion belonging to the Popes Authority To the first wherof we refuse not to sweare but only against the second And now M. Barlow sayth that all concerne religion and consequently we grant that the Popes Breue alloweth no temporall obedience but denieth all And is not this a worthy dispute But let vs passe to the second question whether the Pope or Church hath authority to make new Articles of faith as the Apologer obiected And first to my declaration before set downe to the negatiue part that the Catholicke Church preâ—endeth not any such authority to make new articles of faith that were not of themselues true and of faith before he obiecteth first Doctor Stapletons saying that the Pope and Councell may make the Apocryphall bookes named Hermes and the Constitutions of Clement to be Canonicall Whereto I answere that Doctor Stapleton sayth only that as the ancyent Christian Church had authority vpon due examination by instinct of the holy Ghost to receaue into the Canon of deuine Bookes some that were not admitted before as for example the Epistles of S. Iames the two bookes of Machabees the Epistle of Iude and diuers others as appeareth in the third Councell of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and suâ—scribed so hath the same Church at this day and shall haue vnto the worlds end authority to do the same Si id ei sanctus Spiritus suggereret sayth Doctour Stapleton that is if the holy Ghost shall suggest the same vnto herâ— librum aliquem alâ—â—m nâ—ndum in Canâ—nem recepâ—um Apostolorum tamen tempore conscriptum c. to receaue into the Canon some other booke written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church though it were not receiued for Canonicall before giuing instance of the said two bookes of Hermes
and Clâ—ments Constituâ—ions before mentioned So teacheth Doctor Stapleton and the reason of his saying is for that the authority of the Church is the same now shal be vnto the worlds end as it was in the first ages to iudge of Scriptures when occasion is offered And if the Church should admit any such booke now into the Canon of holy Scriptures which was not held for Scripture before which yet is a case not like to fall out then should noâ— this booke be made Scripture by the Church but only declared to be such which was so from the beginning though not so knowne declared So as the Church in this case should not giue infallibility of truth vnto the booke but only testimony by instinct of the holy Ghost that this booke was such from the beginning though not so accepted So as you must note two cogging tricks of M. Barlow in cyting Doctour Stapletons words first to conceale his first condition Si id ei Spiritus Sanctus suggereret if the holy Ghost should suggest the same vnto the Church and then these other two conditions if it were written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church which omissions were made by M. Barlow of purpose to make M. Doctour Stapletons speach to appeare more naked and improbable but indeed it was to keep his old custome which is neuer commonly to relate things truly in all respects in any citation whatsoeuer His second obiection is out of Bishop Fisher VVho sayth quoth he that whatsoeuer the Pope with a Councell deliuereth vs to be belieued that is to be receiued as an Article of fayth which we graunting to be true do ad only this that it is to be vnderstood according to our former declaration and as the Bishop himselfe expoundeth it against â—uther out of Scotus saying Non quòd â—unc verum Ecclesia fecerit sed à Deotraditum explicauerit sayth Scotus not for that the Church made true this Article for it was true before but â—or that it did declare it to be true and to haue bene deliuered by God and this by direction of the holy Ghost promised by our Sauiour to the Church So sayth Bishop Fisher. Here now you see that neyther the Church nor the Pope Head therof do pretend to make any new Article of fayth that was not in it selfe an article of fayth before yea and so belieued also fide implicita by implyed fayth in the faith of the Church but only the intention of the Church is to declare it to haue byn such from the beginning though not so knowne or declared and therfore men were not bound to belieue it fide explicita by expresse fayth as now they are after the Churches definition and declaration therof And that this is the common sense of all Catholicke Deuines according to my former wordes that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before at which assertion of mine M. Barlow maketh much adoe as though it were false is proued among other learned men of our dayes by Gregorius de Valentia whose wordes are that it is Sententia communis Theologorum the common opinion of Deuines for which he citeth in particuler a multitude of Authors principall Schoolemen And his whole discourse founded vpon Scriptures Fathers Councells and other arguments consisteth in this that as whatsoeuer is now belieued by the Church for matter of fayth was in substance belieued before in all other precedent ages vnto Christes time actu fidei implicito by an implyed act of fayth that is to say the belieuing in generall whatsoeuer the Church belieued so many thinges are now belieued by the Church actu fidei explicito by expresse fayth which were not so belieued before for that the Church froÌ„ time to time hath had authority to explaine matters more clearly and expresly which before were belieued by an implied faith only As for example the first Councell of Nice though it determined nothing for the pâ—oceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and Sonne as was afterward declared vnto vs by the Church but that it belieued the same yet may we not deny but that it belieued the same not fide expliciâ—a but implicita only And so in like manner the other Articles of faith and explications therof made by the subsequent Councels about the vnity of the Person differeÌ„t Natures in Christ that his Mother should be called the Mother of God were belieued implicitè by those of the Councel of Nyce and consequently were then also Articles of faith though they were not belieued by them explicitè as we are bound to do after the explication made by the Church Let vs conclude therfore with Bishop Fiâ—â—ers owne words against M. Barlow Quod tameâ—si nequeat Sumâ—â—â— Pontisex c. That albeit the Pope with a Councel that is to say the Catholick Church cannot make any thing true or false that is not true or false of it selfe and consequently cannot make any new articles of faith yet whatsoeuer the said Church shal deliuer vnto vs as an Article of faith that al true Christians ought to belieue as an Article of faith which Scotus also himselfe in the same place affirmeth Thus Bishop Fisher whome you see how impertinently M. Barlow alleadgeth against my assertion saith the very same that I do Let vs go forward Thirdly then he obiecteth S. Thomas of Aquine who talking of the different Creeds that are set forth concerning the Articles of our faith some more large and some more briefe demandeth to whome appertayneth noua Editio Symboli the new Edition of a Creed when the necessity of new heresies doth require And he sayth it belongeth to the Pope as Head of the Church And what is this against me Did not S. Athanasius also set forth his Creed though he were not Pope with addition of many Articles for explanations sake which were not expressely in the Apostles Creed though in substaÌ„ce of truth they were nothing different Did not diuers Councells set forth Credes with sundry explanations that were not before All which standeth vpon this ground so much pondered by â— Irenaeus that the Apostles had all truth reuealed vnto them by Christ and they left the same in the Church so as whatsoeuer is or hath or shal be added afterward by the said Church are only explications of that first reueiled truth and the childish babling here of M. Barlow to the coÌ„trary is to no purpose at al for he citeth diuers authors for that which we deny not but yet alwaies commonly with addition of some vntruth of his owne as heere he alleadgeth out of the Iesuit Azor that it belongeth vnto the Pope to define Dogmata fidei Doctrines of faith which we deny not but when he addeth that this belongeth vnto the Pope only and not to a Councel this is his owne inuention for Azor ioyneth them
appertaineth to the ancient Oath and not to this wherin nothing is demanded but Ciuil Obedience only which the Cardinal denyeth and in the very first leafe of his answere vnder the name of Torâ—â—â— ioyneth issue principally vpon that point saying Primùm â—stendâ—mus Iuramentum hoc Catholicis propositum non solum ciuilem obedientiam sed etiam Catholicae fidei abnegationem requirere We shal first proue that this later oath proposed vnto Catholicks doth not only require ciuil Obedience but abnegatioÌ„ also of Catholick faith And he proueth it by fiue or six arguments First by the words of the English Statute the title wherof is for the detecting and repressing of Papists which word of Papists importing such as stick to the Pope or defend his Supremacy maketh it euident that the Statute was not intended only against them that deny ciuill Obedience but rather the Kings Supremacy in spiritual affaires Secondly by the words of the Oath themselues that the Pope cannot by himselfe or any other or by any authority of the Church depose c. Which is some denyal of the Pope his authority and consequently not meerely only of temporal Obedience and so out of foure or fiue points more by him obserued and there set downe which as I had not seene when I wrote my Epistle before the publicatioÌ„ of the said Cardinals booke so I vsed not those arguments nor any of them but contented my selfe with one only taken out of the Cardinals words in the beginning of his Letter to M. Blackwel as sufficiently prouing the same that in it selâ—e was most cleare I said as followeth This exception against the Cardinal for mistaking the state of the cause seemeth to be most clerely refuted by the very first lynes almost of the letter it selfe For that telling M. Blackwel how sory he was vpon the report that he had taken illicitum Iuramentum an vnlawfull Oath he expoundeth presently what Oath he meaneth saying Not therâ—ore deare Brother is that Oath lawfull for that it is offeâ—â—â— sâ—â—ewhat tempered and modified c. Which is euidently meant of the new Oath of Allegiance not only tempered with diuers lawfull clauses of Ciuill Obedience as hath bene shewed but interlaced also with other members that â—each to Religion wheras the old Oath of Supremacy hath no such mixture but is plainly and simply set downe for absolute excluding the Popes Supremacy in causâ—s Ecclesiasticall for making the King supreme Head of the Church in the same causes all which is most euident by the Statutes made about the same from the 25. yeare of King Henry the 8. vnto the end of the raigne of King Edward the sixt To this declaration of myne M. Barlow is in effect as mute as a Macedonian frogge if to say nothing at al to the purpose be to be mute though words and wynd be not wanting But first to the Cardinalls six argumentes he sâ—yth neuer a word albeit he had both seene and read them as may be be presumed To my reason of the difference between the Oath of Supremacy and this of Allegiance for that this is modified and tempered with different clauses of thinges partly touching ciuil ObedieÌ„ce and partly Religion wheras the other is simply of Religion against the Popes Supremacy to this I say he answereth with this interrogation If this Oath be so modified iâ— comparison of the other why is it accounted by â—he Censurer the greatest affliction and pressure that euer befel the Catholickes Do you see what a question he maketh and how farre from the purpose My intention was and is to proue that for so much as Cardinall Bellarmine did particulerly impugne this mixt and tempered Oath therfore he did not mistake the question by impugning only the other Oath of Supremacy as was obiected there being between them this difference amongst others that the one to wit of AllegiaÌ„ce is compounded of different clauses as hath bene said partly touching ciuill Obedience and partly Religion wheras this other of Supremacy is simply of Religion This was my demonstration And to what purpose then for answere of this was brought in that other demâ—und of M. Barlow asking vs very seriously why this second Oath should be afflictiue vnto vs if it be modifyed and tempered Is there any sense in this We say for so much as it is compounded and tempered as the other is not therfore it was meant by the Cardinal and not the other M. Barlow saith if it be so tempered why doth it afflict yow We say first that this is nothing to the purpose noe more then VVhich is the way to London A poke â—ull of plummes Secondly to M. Barlowes impertinent demand we say that albeit we grant that this second Oath is modifyed and tempered yet we say not that it is moderate and temperate for a law that in substance is mild may be by some clauses or circumstances so modified that is to say framed in such manner as it may be seuere and rigorous and a thing may be tempered aswell with exasperating ingredientes as mollifying and as well with afflictiue as lenitiâ—e compounds and so is this Oath more sharpe perhaps then the other and so doth M. Barlow him selfe confesse within a few lynes after saying that this last Oath of Allegiance is more pressâ—ng pitthy and peremptorie and in all circumstâ—nces a more exact and searching touch-stone then the â—ormer of the Supremacy And yet as though we did not see nor feele this he will needs haue vs to acknowledge in the same place that this Oath is allaied tempered corrected and moderated for all these are his wordes by the variety of clauses therein contayned theron foundeth his subsequent discourse of our ingratitude in not accepting the same wheras both he and we do hold the contrary that it is more stinging as now you haue heard and that euen by his owne confession what then shall we say of this manner of M. Baâ—lowes disputing Is he fit to be a Kings ChaÌ„pion in writing But heere now by the way I must tell the Reader that in my Letter I interposed a few lines in this place for noting the different style vsed by King Henry King Edward in their Statutes concerning the Oâ—â—h of Supremacy and this othâ—r now related in the Aâ—â—logy in thesâ— wordes I. â— do vtterly tâ—stify and declare 〈…〉 that the Kingâ— Hâ—ghnes is the only Suprâ—me Gouerâ—â—◠〈◊〉 in all causes Ecclâ—siaâ—tâ—call as tempâ—rall wheras in tâ—e Sâ—tute of twenty sixt of king Henry the Eight where the Tytle of Supremacy is â—nactâ—d the wordes are these 〈…〉 â—â—â—cted by this present Parliament that the King his Heires 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—cessors â—â—albe taken â—â—â—epted and repâ—tâ—d the â—nly Supâ—eme 〈…〉 earth of the Church of England and shâ—ll 〈◊〉 aâ—d â—niâ—y 〈◊〉 and vnited vnto the Imperiall Crowâ—e of this Realme asâ—â—â— the tytle and style therof as all honours dignitieâ— authorities 〈◊〉 profites and commâ—ditiâ—s 〈◊〉 the said dignityes
of Supreme 〈◊〉 of the said Church belonging c. And in another Statute two yeares after that From hâ—â—cefâ—rth he shall accept râ—pute â—â—d take the Kings Maiestie to be the â—â—ly Supreme Head oâ— earth of 〈◊〉 Church of England c. And that the refusers of this Oath 〈◊〉 reputed traytours and suffer the pâ—yâ—es of â—â—ath c. And in other Statutes it is decrâ—â—d that it â—halbe â—reasâ—â— tâ—â—eny thâ—â— tytle 〈◊〉 Headship and that this was held of such importance vnder King Edward who succeeded his Father that it is decreed by Statute that all authority of iurisdiction spirituall and temporall in the Biâ—â—ops and Miâ—istry 〈◊〉 deduâ—ed and deriued frâ—◠〈◊〉 Kings Maiestie as Supreme 〈◊〉 c. Vpon this important doubt I was so bold as to stay my selfe a little as now â—lso I must intreating M. Barlow to giue the solution therofâ— to wit that forsomuch as this matter of the Headship of 〈◊〉 Chuâ—ch was held of so great weight by thâ—ir prime aâ—d principall Protestantâ— and especially by their Paâ—riarkes Cranmer â—idley Hâ—â—per and others then holding the places of Bishops in Parlament when the sayd Title was not only confirmed in the Child King but declared alsâ— to be the fountayne of all spirituall â—uthority and iâ—risdiction in the Clergie and that it was treason to deny this Tytle of spirituall influxe in the Clergie how this matter came about that it should be so little esteemed as to be left of and changed now yea to be denyed expressely by their principall wryâ—â—â—â— as namely by Doctour Iohn â—â—ynolds in his â—oÌ„ference with M. Hart where he flatly deâ—yeth that they doe call the Queene Supreme Head but only Supreâ—◠〈◊〉 which if they be Synoâ—â—ma and all one then what necâ—â—â—â—â—ie to hâ—ue denyed 〈◊〉 vnto herâ— But iâ— Goâ—ernour do signify any thing lesâ—e then Supreme Head then haue they changed their principall point oâ— doctrine wheron dependeth the lawâ—ulneâ— of their whole Clâ—rgie aâ— you seâ— and so the matter being of such weight I thought it worth the staying to haue some answere But M. Barlow falleth into a great chafe for this my stay The giddy fellow sayth he hath an other err and to do not 〈◊〉 of the way but by the way The Scripture setteth a more esseâ—â—iâ—â—◠〈◊〉 vpon such by-way takers saying That wicked men declinant 〈◊〉 oâ—â—iquationâ—s take all the by-wayes nâ—okes aâ—d lanes they câ—â— passe for feare to be descryed or apprehended This is one reprehension as you see insteed of answering the matter Yoâ— shall heare anoâ—hâ—r more châ—leriâ—ke It is a vexing tormeâ—◠〈◊〉 a man sayth he thâ—â— is inioyned a ioâ—rney vpon a speed◠〈◊〉 requiring a serious dispatch to traâ—aile with a triâ—ling companâ—â—â— that will make many erâ—ands by thâ— way or hath many acquaintances to stop him in the way or is forced to make often returnes vpâ—â— forgeâ—fullnes of dâ—â—ers â—hingâ— c. And I expected that he would haue sayd also that he must needâ— dâ—inke at eueâ—y Ale-house as he passeth by But this perhaps he thought would haue caused more reflection then he esteemed conuenient and those other triflings are inough for so much as they yield such a veâ—ing tâ—rmeâ—â— to M. Barlow in his iâ—ioyned 〈…〉 â—pon so speedy a busines But why did he not giue me 〈◊〉 a speedy answere without tryfling and so dispatch both me and himselfe quickly Truly you haue heard somewhat largely bâ—forâ— what he can say to this matter â—nd therfore I meane noâ— to dwell theron long in this plâ—â—e especiâ—lly for so much as the man is in such hast and so impatient of stay You haue heard what hath bene treated before about this point of spirituall authority in the temporall Prince and to â—ow â—ow a pitch he bringeth the same euen in effect to agree with vs granting â—nto the Prince the power â—â—ly oâ— execution of such things as are determâ—â—ed by the Church But now in a woâ—â— let vs see how he shifteth of the change of the name of Supreme Head First he sayth that 〈◊〉 Maiesty did not leaue it out oâ— his Title vpon â—uer-awed 〈◊〉 to take it forasmuch as God gaue the said Tyâ—le to a far worse King I pray you note the phrase which is strang from a sâ—biects pen to wit to Saul when he said he was Caput in Triâ—â—busâ— Head among the Tribeâ—â—f Israel And S. Paul nameth the â—â—sband head of the wife But what is this to our purposâ— that do talke of the spirituall Head of the Church Nay it seemeth rather to make against M. Barlowes prouing that the Tytle oâ— Head was lawfull and so it was in the true sense of ciuill Head ship and consequently it should haue bene conâ—inued wheras we demand why it was left of chanâ—ed So as this first answere is nothing to the purpose His second is that it is but identity of commaund expressed 〈◊〉 â—iuersitie of termes But why then was it changed And why doth M. Doctour Reynolds by M. Barlowes owne â—â—â—â—iâ—ony giue the Title not of Headâ— but of Supreme Gouernour What need that expresse negatiue if they were all one If you should deny to the Kings Highnes the Tytle of King and of Supreme Head of the Common-Wealth and call him only supreme Gouernour would it be taken well or excused by identity No man can be ignorant but that in euery state neuer so popular there is a supreme Gouernour â—hough no King Thirdly he sayth that the change of supreme Head into supreme Gouernour was made by Parlament the first yeare of Queene Elizabeths raigne at the request of the Nobles and Deuines of the Land But the question is why and vpon what ground forsomuch as it may be presumed there were as great Deuines in King Henry the Eight hâ—â— time in the Parlament And if not yet at least in King Edwards Parlament that did approue and establish this Tytle of supreme Head It was saith M. Barlow not in regard of Queene Elizabeth her sexe for she being descended as she was she had as absolute authority in the fruition of the Crowne for both powers spirâ—tuall and temporall as any Male-Monarch whatsoeuer And a little after agaiâ—e he saith that this change was made least a weaker 〈…〉 thinke that they gaue vnâ—o Kings tâ—â—t Tiâ—le secundum interioreâ— influâ—um according to â—he inâ—â—riour influence which 〈◊〉 the prâ—pâ—â— office of the head as being the fountayne of moisture and is â—he â—â—st 〈◊〉 attribute of Christ alone But not to speake in this place of this internall influxe of grace that commeth originally from Christ alone although instrumentally also froÌ„ men as in the administration of Sacraments according to Câ—tholike doctrine what will he say of the externall influâ—â— of power iurisdiction ouer soules of preaching teâ—ching administring Sacraments ordayning Ministers and the like Could this power come aswell from a Feminine as a Masculine Monâ—rch If it couldâ— I do
the thing it selfe vttered to wit that it be really true in the sense and meaning of the vtterer and then in the quality of the hearer whether he be a lawfull iudge and therby may oblige the speaker to speake to his intention and other such circumstances which are largely haÌ„dled in my foresaid booke and not vnderstood as it seemeth or not read by M. Barlow which me thinkes he ought to haue done meaning to treate of this matter here And so I shall passe no further therin but referre him the Reader to the larger Treatise of that subiect already extant CARDINALL BELLARMINE is cleered from a false imputation and a controuersie about certaine words clauses in the Oath is discussed § II. AFTER this M. Barlow passeth to a poynt concerning Cardinall Bellarmine set downe in the Apology in these words Some of such Priests and Iesuites as were the greatest traytors fomentours of the greatest conspiracies against her late Maiestyâ— gaue vp F. Robert Bellarmine for one of their greatest authorities and oracles So sayth the Apologer noteth in the margeÌ„t Campian Hart in their conference in the Tower This was noted by me in my Letter as an vniust charge both in respect of the two men meÌ„tioned in the margent who were most free from being traytours and much more the greatest Traytours excepting only their Priestly functioÌ„s most iniuriously made TreasoÌ„s against all truth equity as aboundantly else where hath bene proued but much more in respect of Cardinall Bellarmine who was not so mâ—ch as named by any of them in any matter tending to Treason or conspiracy towards the late Queene and therfore if he were by any of them named or mentioned it was in matter only of learning not of Treasons and conspiracies which M. Barlow is also forced here to confesse and sayth that it was meant in matters of the Conference in the Tower but euery man of iudgment will se what the words of the former charge do import and how farre they reach which M. Barlow considering he dareth not stand to his first refuge but addeth that Bellarmine in his Booke which English Priests do study doth teach such doctrine as is the ground of rebellions he blowes sayth he the bellowes of seditious doctrine which flames out by his Schollers conspiracy to the disturbaÌ„ce of the chiefest States of Christendome But this now men will see how passionate and vntrue it is that the chiefest States of Christendome are disturbed by Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine I do not meane to stand vpon the confutation of so childish imputations There followeth a certaine small controuersie about the words temperate and tempered whether they signify the same or no wherof we haue handled somewhat before so shall dispatch it here in a word Cardinall Bellarmine had said in his Letter to M. Blackwell that this Oath is not therfore lawfull because it is offered as tempered and modified with diuers clauses of ciuill Obedience giuing an example out of S. Gregory Nazianzen of the Ensignes of the Emperour Iulian wherin the Images of the Heathen Gods were mingled and conbyned togeather with the Emperors Picture and therby so tempered modified as a man could not adore the one without the other Which speach of the Cardinall was much reprehended by the Apologer as though Bellarmine had misliked the temperate speach vttered in the forme of this oath But that was no part of Bellarmines meaning but that the said Oath was tempered mixt and compounded of different clauses some lawfull and some vnlawfull as a man would say morter is tempered with water sand lyme and this appeareth by his example of the Ensignes before mentioned tempered that is mixt with the images of the Emperours and their false Gods And if M. Barâ—â—â— will needs haue this temperament to haue also with it some temperature which is his only reply now in this place we will not greatly striue with him Let it be esteemed to be some temperature that here are mingled some clauses of ciuill obedience with other concerning Religion it helpeth the mixture but not the scruple of conscience to him that must take it I pretermit all the rest of M. Barlows superfluous and idle speach about this matter as striuing to say somewhat but yet in substance sayth nothing It followeth in my Letter concerning the answering of two questions proposed by the Apologer wherin I shall repeate againe my owne words then vttered thus then I wrote That the Apologer hauing said with great vehemency of asseueratioÌ„ That heauen and earth are no further a sunder then the profession of a Temporall Obedience to a Temporall King is different from any thing belonging to the Catholike fayth or Supremacy of S. Peter which we graunt also if it be meere Temporall Obedience without mixture of other clauses he proposeth presently two questions for application of this to his purpose First this As for the Catholike Religion sayth he can there be one word found in all this Oath tending to matter of Religion The second thus Doth he that taketh it promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of Religion Wherunto I answere first to the first and then to the second To the first that if it be graunted that power authority of the Pope and Sea Apostolike left by Christ for gouerning his Church in all occasions and necessities be any poynt belonging to Religion among Catholikes then is there not only some owne word but many sentences yea ten or twelue articles or branches therin tending and sounding that way as before hath bene shewed To the secoÌ„d question may make answer euery clause in effect of the Oath it selfe As for example the very first I A. B. do truly sincerely acknowledge professe testify declare in my conscience that the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any authority of the Sea or Church of Rome hath any power authority c. doth not this include eyther beliefe or vnbeliefe Againe I do further sweare that I do from my hart abhorre detest abiure as impious hereticall that damnable doctrine position That Princes which be excommunicated and depriued by the Pope may be deposed c. Doth not here the swearer promise not to belieue that doctrine which he so much detesteth How then doth the Apologer so grossely forget and contradict himselfe euen then when he goeth about to proue contradictions in his Aduersary It followeth consequently in the Oath And I do belieue and in conscience am resolued that neyther the Pope nor any person whatsoeuer hath power to absolue me from this Oath or any part therof These words are plaine as you see And what will the Apologer say heere Is nothing promised in those words to be belieued or not belieued This was my speach And now see what quarrell M. Barlow seeketh agaynst it First wheras in my answer to the first question I say if it be granted that
to relate out of the said Petrus that amongst other points in a certaine consultatioÌ„ betweene the Popes Commissioners and the Emperours neere vnto Rome in the yeare 1110. it was demaunded by the Emperour that his Fathers dead body might be interred and that the Pope denyed the same But neyther of these points do make against vs nor in fauour of M. Barlow his assertion for that we deny not but that Pope Paschalis for the reasons before touched was after some time that the body had bene taken vp and placed in the Chappell of S. Afra in Spire vnwilling to yield to the sollemne and sumptuous reburyall therof the man dying excommunicate and out of the Church and the memory of his many violent actions against the Church being yet fresh in all mens minds But what proueth this to our principall controuersie whether the Pope did prohibite his first buryall and commanded his disinterring in Leigeâ— Do you not see how M. Barlow fighteth in the ayre with the wind and runneth from the purpose in euery thing he taketh in hand and yet braggeth of a cloud of witnesses But I hope I haue cleered the ayre and dispersed all these smoky clouds But it is worth the considering how besides this deuiation he vseth both Baronius and Petrus Diaconus in relating out of their testimonies Pope Paschalis his answere to the yong Emperors CoÌ„missioners when they proposed the matter of the solemne burying of his Father some foure yeares after his body had bene taken vp in Leige by the said Sonnes commandement M. Barlow relateth the matter ironicâ— thus The Pope yielded presently to the demaund with a strong negatiue and tells him it may not be and giues him his reason for that he had receiued a terrible iniunction from the Martyrs deceased and in those places shrined that he should suffer no wicked persons to be buryed within their Church for they would not indure it And all this relateth M. Barlow in a different letter as if they were the very words of the Author and diuers clauses he setteth out in great letters which coÌ„monly are great lies and not found in the Author I shall set downe the true words as they stand in Baronius taken out of Petrus Diaconus Ad hoc respondit Paschalis c. To this demaund of the Emperour about the buryall of his Father Pope Paschalis answered The authority of holy Scripture is against this and the reuerence we beare to diuine miracles doth forbid the same for that Martyrs themselues now placed in heauen haue dreadfully coÌ„manded that the carcasses of haynous wicked men should be cast out of their Chappell 's and with whom we haue not had communion in their liues we may not communicate when they are dead These are the words of Paschalis verbatim which M. Barlow hath trymmed to his purpose as you see For if he had set them downe sincerely as he found them in the Authour they would not haue appeared so ridiculous as he desired they should appeare and therefore spiced them after his owne fashion For first the Pope beginneth not with that strong negatiue It may not be set downe in great letters but only sayth that the authority of holy Scriptures was against it alledging as may be presumed to thâ—se places of Scriptures wherin separation is willed to be made betweene the good and the bad the wicked and godly especially such are curst out of the Church for their contempt and dyed in the same contempt according to that saying of our Sauiour si â—cclesiam non audierit sit tibi tamquam â—thnicus Puâ—licanus if he heare not the Church let him be vnto thee as an Heathen and Publican And we may see by the diligence of Tobie and other holy men how carefull they were least the bodies of the faithfull people should be mingled with Gentils which S. Augustine and other Fathers do much commend and for auoyding wherof euen from the beginning of Christianity places of speciall buriall for Christians were prouided as appeareth by S. Dionysius Areopagita in the end of his Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie which places afterward were named in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Câ—emeteria that is to say dormitories or sleeping places for that Christians deaths are accompted but for sleepes appeareth by the Apostle And the holy Martyr S. Cyprian and others after him do often make mention of these Cemeteries or burials of Christians and among other thinges the foresaid S. Cyprian writing an Epistle to the Clergy and people of a certaine Church in Spaine against one Martialis that had committed Idolatry he accuseth him among other poynts quod filus apud profana sepulchra depositos alienigenis consepultos permisisset that he had suffered his children to be depositated in prophane sepulchers and to be buried with such as were externes not of the same Church and communion This was the care at that time but much more afterward did the Church by speciall prouision of Ecclesiasticall CanoÌ„s ordayne that Infidels Hereticks Schismaticks and excommunicated persons should not be buried togeather in sacred buriall as well for the instruction and terror of such sortes of men as also for the reason alleaged heere by the Pope that with whome we haue had no communion in life we should not communicate after death which reason M. Barlow in his playne dealing thought good to leaue out as also the mention of the authority of holy Scripture named by the Pope and the reuerence due to diuine miracles There remayneth then the chiefe iest brought in by M. Barlow of the terrible iniunction which the Pope said he had receaued from the Martyrs deceased and shrined in those places that he should suffer no wicked persons within their Churches for they would not indure â—t In which few lines coÌ„sider I beseech you how many corruptions there be and confesse that M. Barlow is a craftes man indeed First the Author doth not say that the Pope himself had receiued this terrible iniunction froÌ„ the Martyrs shryned in those places as M. Barlow doth but only that Martyrs now in heauen had so commaunded but by what reuelation or to whome or when he sayth not so as it might be many yeares before and in far different places that the apparitions had bene made For that Martyrs haue often tymes appeared to good men and reueiled somewhat touching their owne or other mens bodies is euident by all Ecclesiasticall histories wherof we haue example of the Saints Geruasius and Protasius in S. Ambrose S. Augustine and others and of the apparition of S. Faâ—stinus Martyr in Brixia commaunding the remouall froÌ„ thence of the body of Valerianus Patricius whereof S. Gregory wryteth as also of other examples to the like effect in the ensuing Chapters Secondly he doth not say that the Martyrs commaunded to suffer no wicked persons to be buried within their Churches for that were hard that no sort of euill men should be admitted to
liued in Africk he not only suffered but procured throughout all Sicily and his kingdome of Italy the fairest women and maidens which the Turkes lusted after to be taken from their parents bosome and married wiues euen out of their husbands armes to be giuen vnto them So he And was not this a vertuous man trow you who to pleasure the Turkes sworn enemies of Christ would thus deale with Christians And doth not this man deserue to be credited speaking in his owne behalfe before Pope all writers and whatsoeuer other testimony But indeed this dealing was conforme to his deuotion for he who so vilely esteemed of our Sauiour himself no meruaile if in his other behauiour he were so irreligious base and wicked for as we haue before out of Fazelius shewed he held our Sauiour and Moyses to be no better theÌ„ Mahomet calling them all three Seducers as with Fazelius the Chronicles of Augusta and Compilatio Chronologica both German histories do auouch and moreouer affirme that he speake the same in the hearing of Henry the Lantgraue saying withal If the Princes of the Empire would but follow me I would ordaine a bâ—tter maner of beliefe and liâ—e for all Nations And verily it seemeth that he aymed at this when as you haue seene before out of his owne epistle set downe and censured by both the Matthews he went about to abase all the Clergie by taking all liuings from them and to depriue them of all their dignity â—or that being once effected he might with more ease afterwardes haue made a new Clergy a new faith a new Christ but he forgot in this his foolish feruor what the Kingly Prophet Dauid said and praied against such atteÌ„ptes Omnes Principes qui dixerunt hereditate possideamus Sanctuarium Dei c. All thoâ—e Princes who haue sayed let vs possesse as our inheritance the Sanctuary of God let them be O my God as a wheele and as straw before the face of the wind as a fier that burnes the wood and as a flame that consumes the mountaines So shalt thou persecute them c. Which seemes in some sort to be verified litteâ—ally in this man who after his excommunication being in extreme calamitie as well by the election of another Emperour defection of a great part of the Empire from him as also for that one of his sonnes to wit Entius King of Sardinia was taken prisoner by the people of Bolognia and another was dead in Apulia Likewise himself percussus est saith Matthew Paris morbo qui dicitur lupus vel sacer ignis was stroken with the disease which is called the wolâ—e or holy fier whereby he was so humbled as the same Author witnesseth that he offered vnto the Pope good conditions of peace according saith Matthew to that saying of the Psalmist which followeth immediatly in the same Psalme by me now alleadged Imple facies eorum ignominia quaerent nomen tuum Domine fill their face with confusion and they will seeke thy name O lord And this chastismeÌ„t of almighty God as it began in his owne person so it continued in his issue partly whiles he liued partly after his death vntill they were all extirpated In his life tyme his Sonne Henry was made away by his owne procurement being cast into pryson where he was eyther poysoned by his command as some thinke or else died naturally as others report Entius was taken by the Bolognians and there after twenty yeares restrainst and more being kept in an iron cage he pined away and died miserablie Bononiam ductus saith Mutiâ—â— mittitur in ferreamâ— caueam in qua sordidissimo victu nutritus miserimam vitam post aliquot annos finiuit Entiuâ— being brought to Bolognia is cast into an iron cage in which being intertained with most filthy diet after some yeares imprisonmeÌ„t ended a most miserable life So he His other bastard-sonne Fredericke died in Apulia And after the said Emperour his death his sonne Conrade King of Sicily was poysoned by Manfred his bastard-brother and Manfred was slaine in battaile by Charles of Angâ—ow and Conradinus Sonne or Nephew to Conradus for in this Authors differ was beheaded at Naples and so ended the race of this wicked and vnfortunate Emperour of whome that may iustly be said which Iob speaketh of the like men Haec est pars impij apud Deum c. This is the portion of the wicked man with God aâ—d the inheritance of the violent oppressors which they shall receaue from the omnipotent If his sonnes shal be multiplied they shall die by the sworde and his nephews shall not be filled with bread All whome he shall leaue behind him shal be buried in destruction Which if all Princes could remeÌ„ber amidst their greatnes no doubt but they would be more moderate in their power and actions and also feare him more qui auâ—ert spiritum Principum terribilis apud omnes Reges terrâ— who taketh away the life of Princes and is dreadfull to all the Kinges of the earth Before we haue set downe out of the Councell it self then which there can be no more graue or greater authority all the causes of his condemnation as his sacriledges his periuries vpon periuries his perfidiousnes to the Christians his treacherous treaty with the Soldan his spoiling of Churches and monasteries his expelling of the Christians out of Nuceria and giuing it to the Turkes his reuiuing the foule faction of the Guelphes and Gibbelines all which and many more as they may be seene in the sentence of Innocentius and Seuerinus Binnius so also many other Authors might be alleadged for the same And he who listeth to read more herof may peruse VVilliam of Nangis the Frenchman in the life of S. Lewis and with him all the Authors whom before we haue cited where some of these things haue bene more particulerly touched which no doubt was the cause why VViceliâ—â— a German in his Epitome of the Popes liues in this Innocentiâ—â— the 4. spake so contemptibly of the Emperours death as he said sub hoc perijt bestia Fredericus In the time of this Pope died that beast Fredericke And the Monke of Padua registring the same death saith Vitam amisit in Apulia c. On S. Lucies day Fredericke died in Apulia and descended into hell carrying nothing with him but a sack of sinnes So he far different from that which before we haue heard others to write of the death of Innocentiuâ— And this may suffice to shew what smal reason M. Barl. had so much to iustify this Emperor for his sake to coÌ„demne the Popes who then liued forgetting in boâ—h that seuere coÌ„mination of the Holy Ghost Qui iustificat impiuÌ„ qui condemnat iustum abominabilis est vterque apud Deum He that iustifies the wicked and he that condemnes the iust both are abominable before God Which makes M. Barlowes case the more pittifull for that he
Emperour to iudge definitiuely which are matters of faith or not For it is not the chiefe question which matters belong to faith and which not for that is easily discerned in general but which opinions in these matters be true or false doubtfull dangerous Catholicke or Hereticall in particuler Wherin forasmuch as the Decrees that are or shal be made by the Councels assembled must take their validity from the Emperours assent yea euen as they are matters of fayth and religion and that without this assent they are vtterly voâ—de it is a ridiculous thing to see M. Barlow play fast and loose as he doth in this matter taking away with one hand that which he giueth with the other then yielding againe that which before he had taken away which proceedeth of the miserable labyrinth wheriâ— he seeth himselfe to be in this question about the Kings spirituall authority which he would seeme to defend â—â—t in effect ouerthroweth the same when he commeth to the point as before hath byn noted And this necessity driueth him to such contradictory speaches not knowing well where to rest himselfe as euen heere in these his last wordes there is a notorious intanglement if they be wel considered For first he sayth that it belongeth not to the Emperour definitiuely to iudge which are matters of faith but to ratify by his assent what the Councel had defined to be matter of faith Suppose that some Councel had decreed that Christ was the Sonne of God and equal in Godâ—ead to his Father as diuers did vnder Constantius the AriaÌ„ Emperour and he would not ratify the â—ayd decrees by his assent were they all voyd for this and had they no validity Or was this Councel bound to submit it selfe in these points of faith and religion vnto that Emperour as M. Barlows former doctrine inferreth though heere he would seeme to moderate the matter but indeed he knoweth not where to consist For if no Decrees of Councels in any matters of faith or religion haue any validity without the Emperours ratification and assent as heere also he doth insinuate then must we needs allow also vnto him power to iudge definitiuely and not only to execute as before hath beene proued And as for the instance which he alleageâ—h out of the Synod of Aquileia held vnder the raigne of Gratian Valentiâ—â—an and Theodosius ioynt Emperours wherin was S. Ambrose that wrote with the rest of the Bishops vnto the foresaiâ— Emperours humbly and earnestly desiring them saith M. Barlow that they would vouchsafe to make good what the Bishops â—ad in thâ—s Assemâ—ly concluded it is meerely false For first no such speach is found in the place by him cited secondly though the sayd Bishops doe complayne much in that letter of certaâ—ne disorderly hereticks that troubled their peace namely Valence and Attalâ—â— and did request the protection oâ— tâ—e â—ayd Emperours for their quiet yeâ— doe they not as M. Barlow falsely affirmeth desire thâ— Emperours to ratify their Decrees set downe in matterâ— oâ— faith or to make good what they had concluded foâ— that had byn to haue made them Iudges of their said Decrees against which thing as attempted by the heretiks Sâ— Ambrose excepteth in that very place saying That Priesâ— must iudge of lay men and not lay men oâ— priests in matters beloâ—gâ—â—â— to religion but they did demaund their temporall help anâ— protection only for defence of that which they had decreed and for peaceable obseruing thereof putting thâ— said Emperours in mind to haue first respect vnto thâ— reuerence of the Catholick Church and then vnto thâ— obseruation of their owne laws therby Reuerentiam priâ—â—â— Ecclesiae Catholicae deinde etiam legibus vestris Pietas Vestra deferâ—â—â—ubeat â—hat your Piety doe first commaund reuerence tâ— be exhibited to the Catholicke Church and afterward tâ— your owne laws So S. Ambrose with that Synod Whereâ—by may appeare what reuerence and respect they requyred at these three Christian Emperours hands vnto theiâ— Ecclesiastical decrees they representing the Church before their owne Imperiall lawes Vnto the sentence which I doe cite in my Letter onâ— of the Councell of VVormes that Councels may not bâ— held without allowance oâ— the Bishop of Romeâ— M. Barlâ—â— anâ—wereth with more choller then reason That it is a manifest vntruth made good by an obscure author out of a Councel â—euer assembled or neuer recorded But if it be so manifest why had not he alleadged so much as one author old or new since that time which is aboue 800. yeares agone thaâ— denied the same vntill this our age Whereas we alleadgâ— for the affirmatiue that there was such a Councell held at VVormes vpon that yeare of 770. both out of the life oâ— Charles the Great written by a very ancient Author aâ— alâ—o out of the 6. and 7. Bookes de Capitularibuâ— Franc. and out of mâ—ny Histoâ—ies after them as namely Rhegine thaâ— liued full 700. yeares agone and mentioneth that Councell of VVormes vpon the same yeare yea the Authorâ— themselues mentioned by M. Barlow namely Genebraâ—d Bynâ—â—â— and Caranza being confessed by him to mention such â— Councel do proue also that it was recorded And as foâ— his negatiue argument out of Canisius in his short table of Chronography prefixed before his Catechisme who â—â—ming some Councels doth not name that Councel of VVormes hath no substance at al. For that Canisius his purpose was not to name all Councels especially such as were Prouinciall as this of VVormes was but some only 〈◊〉 example sake for in that very Age of 800. wherein Châ—â—les did florish as Emperour I find 5. or 6. at least preâ—â—rmitted by Canisius as Ratisponense Altinense Constantinopâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 Actinacense Lugdunense and some others And in the precedent age when Charles was King of France I fâ—nd aboue a dozen Prouincial Councels left out of Caâ—â—â—â—â—s his Chronology and so might this also be of VVorâ—es albeit there is a Councel of VVormes registred by him about the middle of the age of 800 which also may be this that we talke of though placed by the Printer somewhat lower in the Columne then it should be But why do we stand spending of time in these triâ—â—ing obiections brought in by M. Barlow against himselfe If the Councâ—ll be confessed by so many as himselfe mentioneth here in this place to wit Genebrard Byâ—nius and Caranza and the sentence before cited for the necessity of the Popes consent in gathering of the Councels cannot be denied but that it is registred in the history before mentioned de Capitularibus Franc. as Bynnius also expresly affirmeth though concealed by Mâ— Barlow who doth not see but that one or two ancient Authors affirming any thing are to be preferred before many that hould their peace and say nothing to the contrary But as for the mayne question it selfe whether it appertayne vnto the Popes authority to call Councels and approue the same the profe is not taken
so much from this acknowledgment or testimony of the Councell of VVormes which did but set downe the sense of the Christian Church in these dayes but from other far more ancient proofes and testimonies as M. Barlow wel knoweth though here he dissembleth the same and chaâ—eth exceedingly saying That this fugitiue for such is his modesty of speach wil fâ—tch a 〈◊〉 sentence from this Councel to warrant no Councel to be good that iâ— celebrated without the Popes Authority and therby at one push ouerthrow the credit of al Councels both general and particuler for the better part of 900. yeares after Christ. Wherto I answer first that to be a fugitiue for the cause of Catholicke Religion is no reproach at al but a high commendation warranted by Christes owne words when he willed them that were persecuted in one Citty to fly into another and much more happy is it to be a fugitiue then a persecutour S. Athanasius in his booke de fugasua of his flight and persecution doth handle the matter at large to whom I remit the Reader Secondly as for the summoning gathering of CouÌ„cels general or particuler our controuersy is principally of General Councels for as for Diocesian Synods as they may be assembled by ech Bishop in his district and the Prouincial Councels by the Metropolitan which Protestants themselues wil not deny so by the due proportion of good order General Councels must be gathered by commandment or consent at least of the general Pastour though in States subiect to temporal Princes good reason requireth that the matter be done in like manner with the approbation of the said temporal Princes for the houlding of the said Councel in this or that place of their Dominions And this was obserued in the first 4. General Councels which were commanded to be gathered by Constantine Theodosius the elder Theodosius the yonger and Martian the Emperours by the assent and approbation of the Popes Syluester Damasus Celestinus and Leo which besides other proofes of seueral histories is made euident by the last of the said 4. Councels to wit that of Chalcedon where in the first action the heretical Archbishop Dioscorus was punished publikely and forbidden to sit amongst the Bishops for that he had presumed to call a Councell without the authority of the Apostolike Sea Quâ—d numquam licuiâ— say they numquam sactum est that neuer was lawfull nor euer was done And consequently this prooueth that all the first 4. Generall Councells were gathered by the consents and approbations of the Bishops of Rome though with the concurrence also of the Emperours without whose good liking the meeting of so many Bishops in their States could not be permitted as before hath bene said But now here before I passe any further I must make you acquainted with a solemne foolery and falshood of M Barlow concerning Cardinall Bellarmine for that hauing vttered the words before mentioned that CouÌ„cels were to be gathered by the Emperours and not by the Bishops of Rome though he citeth no one argument for the same yet saith he this is a thing so cleare and radiant that Bellarmine himselfe being dazeled with behoulding the euidence euen as S. Peter not wiâ—â—ing what he said though he laboured to build for the Pope yet labâ—â—reth be also to build for the Emperour and in that same place he â—â—eweth diuers reasons why it rather belongeth to Emperours then to Popes for â—o assemble Councells citing for the same in his margent Bellar. de Concil cap. 13. But truly when I went to the place of Bellarmine and read his words I was ashamed on M. Barlowes behalfe and his folly was so radiant in my eyes to vse his phrase that I could not read them without blushing for that in the Chapter by him cited and in the other going before Bellarmine doth proue most substantially by many arguments both out of Scriptures Fathers Councels reasons histories practice and examples that it appertayneth not to the Emperour only or principally but to the Bishop of Rome to call General CouÌ„cells or at leastwise that it may not be done without the said Bishops consent and approbation first had so as the very contradictory proposition to this which M. Barlow sets downe is found in these expresse words in Bellarmine â—sse reuerà Pontiâ—icis non Imperatoris congregare Synodum generalem that is belongeth truely to the Pope and not to the Emperour to gather a generall Councell Adding notwithstanding 4. particuler reasons and temporall respects why diuers generall Councells could not be gathered togeather vnder the Emperours who were temporal Lords of the world without their likings consents Not saith he for that a Councell gathered without the authority of the Emperour among Christians should not be of validity as our aduersaries doe dreame whereas S. Athanasiuâ— saith plainely in his epistle to them that lead a solitary life Quando vmquam iudicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritateÌ„ habuit when did euer the iudgment of the Church take authority from the Emperour but for that the temporall state of Christendome standing in the Emperours hands no such meeting could be made without their approbation And can this stand with that which M. Barlow here affirmeth in his name that he shewes diuers reasons why it rather belonged to Emperours then to the Pope to assemble Councells Will he not blush and be ashamed of this shameles calumniation or rather forgery As for that he obiected coÌ„cerning the Graunt giuen to Charles the Great by Adrian the Pope to haue authority to approue the Election of the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops and Archbishops and to dispose of the Sea Apostolike c. I referre him to Cardinall Baronius for his answer in his Annales of the yeare 774. where he discusseth the matter at large and proueth it a meere fiction and plaine fraud inuented registred first by Sigebertus in fauour of the cause of Henry the fourth Emperour excommunicated by the Pope which he proueth by many playne euidences out of all the ancient writers for the space of 300. years after Charles his time who neuer made mention of any such Graunt as also the expresse testimony of Eginhardus that was Notary to Charles the Great and was alwayes about him and wrote his life and by diuers other proofes which were too long here to recite Therfore with this shall we end this Chapter VVHETHER THE POPE IN HIS BREVE DID FORBID TEMPORALL OBEDIENCE to his Maiesty of England AND Whether the said Pope hath Power to make new Articles of faith CHAP. VII WHERAS in the Apology a great coÌ„plaint was made against the Pope for that in his Breue he did forbid temporall Obedience to be performed to his Maiesty as a poynt against fayth and saluation of soules moreouer chargeth him with assuming vnto himselfe infallibility of spirit to make new Articles of sayth when euer it shall please him c. my answer therunto